Talk:Israeli–Palestinian conflict/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Early tensions

@Enthusiast01: regarding your comment: "There was no initial tensions, that came later. Later, the tension was not because of the immigration itself, but because it was Jewish immigration. There was not the same objection to Arab immigration at the same time." This is wrong. See for example Balfour_Declaration#Opposition_in_Palestine and:

We have noticed yesterday a large crowd of Jews carrying banners and over-running the streets shouting words which hurt the feeling and wound the soul. They pretend with open voice that Palestine, which is the Holy Land of our fathers and the graveyard of our ancestors, which has been inhabited by the Arabs for long ages, who loved it and died in defending it, is now a national home for them ... We Arabs, Muslim and Christian, have always sympathized profoundly with the persecuted Jews and their misfortunes in other countries ... but there is wide difference between such sympathy and the acceptance of such a nation ... ruling over us and disposing of our affairs. [Source: Wasserstein, 1991, p.32, quoting Storrs to OETA headquarters, 4 Nov. 1918 (ISA 2/140/4A)]

It is said that the effect of the Balfour Declaration was to leave the Moslems and Christians dumbfounded ... It is impossible to minimise the bitterness of the awakening. They considered that they were to be handed over to an oppression which they hated far more than the Turk's and were aghast at the thought of this domination ... Prominent people openly talk of betrayal and that England has sold the country and received the price ... Towards the Administration [the Zionists] adopted the attitude of "We want the Jewish State and we won't wait", and they did not hesitate to avail themselves of every means open to them in this country and abroad to force the hand of an Administration bound to respect the "Status Quo" and to commit it, and thereby future Administrations, to a policy not contemplated in the Balfour Declaration ... What more natural than that [the Moslems and Christians] should fail to realise the immense difficulties the Administration was and is labouring under and come to the conclusion that the openly published demands of the Jews were to be granted and the guarantees in the Declaration were to become but a dead letter? [Source: Report of the Palin Commission, August 1920]

Also note the Arab Congress of 1913:

...educated Arabs could not be deaf to the endless statements made by Zionist leaders abroad concerning Jewish ambitions in Palestine. These were frequently reproduced in the Arabic press and by 1913, despite official Zionist declarations to the contrary, Arab leaders in Palestine and elsewhere were convinced that the sole object of the Zionist Movement was to establish a Jewish state which, centred in Palestine, might even extend as far as Iraq. These leaders voiced their fears in the Ottoman Parliament, while editors of newspapers in Palestine as well as in Beirut, Damascus and Cairo worked out and broadcast - often with considerable vehemence - Arab objections to Jewish activities in Palestine. [Source: Neville Mandel. (1965). Attempts at an Arab-Zionist Entente: 1913-1914. Middle Eastern Studies, 1(3), 238-267]

The magnitude of the tensions were due to the the publicly stated political intentions to make Palestine Jewish, which were naturally frightening to the native population. This is not the same as normal opposition to immigration, which does not envisage a change in sovereignty. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:44, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 May 2021

change ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN CONFLICT to ISRAELI'S TERRORISM TOWARDS PALESTINIANS 2A02:9B0:4015:3C7B:89F3:8EB:9513:4887 (talk) 03:18, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:52, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 May 2021

I believe the sections including attempted peace negotiations should include President Trump's attempted negotiations to work towards a two state solution in conjunction with economic development in Palestine. Rogoto1579 (talk) 03:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:55, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 May 2021 (2)

What is happening between Israel and Palestine is NOT A CONFLICT!! it is ethnic cleansing, settler colonialism, military occupation, land theft, and OPPRESSION. Please change this immediately and spread correct information. 105.226.30.31 (talk) 10:29, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: WP:NOTAFORUM ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:46, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Triplicate bias of sloppy majoritarian wishful thinking

Third para of lead, on long-standing negotiation failure:

In 2007, the majority of both Israelis and Palestinians, according to a number of polls, preferred the two-state solution over any other solution as a means of resolving the conflict.

Any other? Or merely any of the other constrained options presented by the survey, either explicitly or implicitly? This is not a small detail.

Fourth para of lead, on disparate views of long-standing failure:

A majority of Jews see the Palestinians' demand for an independent state as just, and thinks Israel can agree to the establishment of such a state.^[13] The majority of Palestinians and Israelis in the West Bank and Gaza Strip have expressed a preference for a two-state solution.^{[14][15][unreliable source?]}

Actual text of [13]:

Public opinion polls in Israel and the Palestinian territories continue to show majority support for a two-state solution that ends the conflict.

Good grief. Among those who showed up to vote, a majority of people in the UK supported Brexit, but subsequent to this "support" it's hard to find two people in the same room who support the same specific proposal for the terms of this economic divorce.

The single most outrageous statement Trump made during his political tenure: "Nobody knew health care could be so complicated."

Nobody? It's pretty much a litmus test of whether a citizen or resident of America is living in the real world with their eyes open. If you don't know that health care is one of America's most polarized, partisan, Byzantine and intractable problems, the next question in line to bracket the other person's world-view competence: "okay, do you know water is wet?" And if you get a "yes" answer you can say, "great! we're already halfway there." Then you can ask: do you think Jared Kushner can solve the Israeli–Palestinian conflict over coffee tomorrow afternoon? If the answer is "yes" again, you might be halfway there, but you've still got a long road ahead.

What makes American healthcare "so complicated" is that many people are quick to support ideological option (A) or (B), but then when any specific proposal trickles into view, seven people out of ten go ape shit over their favoured ox being gored (such as watching your favourite Gore being doxed). Ideological majority often fails, and fails miserably, to translate into majorism backing any specific, concrete proposal.

These ideological surveys, testing categories of solutions over specific solutions, are already bad enough. But here on Wikipedia, we've made the problem even worse by shearing off the restrictive clause "that ends the conflict".

As I'm not picking on Trump in particular, let's also consider the Firdos Square statue destruction. The "majority" of Americans supported the Iraq invasion under the (careless) assumption that toppling the statue of Saddam Hussein would "end the conflict" (at least symbolically). What we saw instead was a year of Bush and other Bush administration officials running around saying "I did not have insurgency with those Arabs", modelled to a T on Bill Clinton's less-than-finest hour ("I did not have sexual relations with that woman.")

As it stands, we've used the word "majority" in this lead three times in short succession, and nowhere have we made it clear that this is quite possibly yet another majorism of wishful thinking (spanning all citations provided), entirely congruent with: Brexit, ending Obamacare, and the toppling of the Hussein administration in Iraq.

What you can legitimately assert from the polls cited is that the majority of people polling are not rejecting the two-state solution out of hand, though the devil is surely in the details, should a concrete proposal be tabled from on high.

I am not the man of one book, or one Wikipedia page, or one geopolitical conflict. I have many other Wikipedia pages yet to visit / And miles to go before I sleep. On fresh news of Sheldon Adelson's passing, I've merely stopped by long enough to carve my two cents into the tree bark (with loud and sloppy axe strokes) for what it's worth.

Looking back, I see that I used the word "specific" four times in opposition to this article's lead bandying about the phrase "a majority of" three times. Not an accident, by any stretch. — MaxEnt 20:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

You do provide an interesting a valid viewpoint, that source, and the subsequent piece of information provided in the article, have been determined to add more information and value than they remove. If you wish to get that citation and information removed or changed, you are going to need to find:

A: A better source that covers the same topic of the previous one that you believe is better than the previous one, or,

B: A reason for removing that source

Thanks, JazzClam (talk) 14:47, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

You've used commenting on several parts of the article to not-so-subtlety insert several WP:FORUM and WP:SOAP violations. Cease.

Factual accuracy tag

What exactly is the 2020 factual tag referring to? This shouldn't be an article that a tag like that sits on. What exactly is the problem and how can we fix it? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:08, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

If there is no current discussion in talk, it can be removed.Selfstudier (talk) 21:22, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Unsourced statement temporarily removed

I removed this statement here from the Palestinian refugees section. It hasn't got a reference, something that had been flagged since 2015. This is too controversial and sensitive a topic for unsourced statements; feel free to move this back if you come across a proper reference to back it up:

• The Palestinian refugee issue is handled by a separate authority from that handling other refugees, that is, by UNRWA and not the UNHCR. Most of the people recognizing themselves as Palestinian refugees would have otherwise been assimilated into their country of current residency, and would not maintain their refugee state if not for the separate entities.

Markus Pössel (talk) 23:13, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 February 2021

Gaza strip is not occupied by Israel. But rather is under blockade due to the fact that a terrorist organisation- Hamas is ruling the strip. As such, in order to protect itself, Israel is controlling what's going in and out of Gaza. 46.125.249.12 (talk) 18:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Also, the control of Hamas is already mentioned in the article. Gaioa (T C L) 19:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

This is completely false, firstly Hamas is as much a terrorist organisation as Israel or even North Korea, they are trying to establish a government and as a terrorist organisation is defined as a terrorist entity as 'any non-governmental organization. that engages in premeditated acts of violence against persons or property to. intimidate a civilian population, government, or international organization in. order to achieve a political, religious, or ideological aim'. which Hamas does not do, your statement is wrong. Secondly as per UN law, Israel has illegally occupying the Gaza Strip since 1948. Furthermore this 'blockade' as you call it is in fact defined as a siege, in which Israel is limiting the power, water and gas sources that enter Gaza, they are using the siege as a form of control over the Palestinians and deny UN officials, WHO and basic humanitarian organisations access and dont even allow international aid to enter.Ftuk,hjvtu (talk) 15:35, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Please Fix the Narrative!

It is not a "conflict" when one side is the oppressor and the other is oppressed.

The narrative provided on Wikipedia is an aggregate of the narratives provided by Reliable sources. We do not create narrative nor opinion and create neutrality through bipartisanship, not nonpartisanship. In the case of this article we would provide information from both pro-Israel and pro-Palestine sources. For further information on a specific topic use the easily available inline citations. By using Reliable sources as a source of opinion, we prevent a "Cabal" of powerful editors swaying opinion. Thanks, JazzClam (talk) 14:42, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

"Conflict" implies two relatively equal sides. This article violates WP:NPOV. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 16:14, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Mass move request for timelines of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict

I proposed to rename pages from "Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, YYYY" to "YYYY in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict". Discussion is at Talk:Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2020#Requested move 15 May 2021. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 20:06, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 May 2021

Please change the title of this page, "Israeli-Palestinian Conflict" to "Israel's Terrorism Against Palestine" This should not be stated as a conflict as Israel is the oppressor. https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-178302/ The above stated link shows clearly why it is not a conflict, but terrorism instead. Knightthedark (talk) 13:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: WP:NPOV is rather clear on this; and I'm quite sure that a look at reliable sources will show neither side is as innocent as they claim... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:39, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Proposed link/section under Present Status (Israel and the apartheid analogy)

I've searched within the talk archives for discussion regarding the specific word 'apartheid.' I haven't found anything recent so I think that this is worth discussing.

To preface this post with some context, I think it is worth mentioning within the article, "whether specific acts and policies carried out by Israeli authorities [in Israel, and in the occuppied territories] today amount in particular areas to the crimes of apartheid and persecution as defined under international law."

The tricky challenge here is to establish relevance within the article, as well as the appropriate location and length with regards to mentioning this facet of the occupation.

With regards to relevance, I think it fits well within the overall article as it is a facet of discussion regarding the continued occupation. As the occupation is discussed at length within the article and the long length of the occupation is mentioned within the WP:Lede as well, it is worth discussing contemporary views on the occupation which some believe rises to the crime of apartheid.

With regards to length and location, I think that it is prudent to add a section under Present Status (probably at the bottom) regarding the current continued occupation as possible apartheid. In terms of length, I think we should hope to match the length of the other subsections and provide a link to Israel and the apartheid analogy.

There is enough WP:RS supporting this. Some sources that can be found with regards to this.

I think recent developments are quite supportive with a Human Rights Watch report recently explicitly accusing the government of Israel of apartheid, "On the basis of its research, Human Rights Watch concludes that the Israeli government has demonstrated an intent to maintain the domination of Jewish Israelis over Palestinians across Israel and the OPT. In the OPT, including East Jerusalem, that intent has been coupled with systematic oppression of Palestinians and inhumane acts committed against them. When these three elements occur together, they amount to the crime of apartheid." . Theheezy (talk) 06:31, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I would agree. I would add to this that I think that this article, while it may present an accurate amalgam of mainstream and reputable sources, does not take into account the inequity in those sources in the first place. Whereas Israel is a modern state with close ties to many western nations, Palestine is a state that has been on the defensive since 1948. Any nation state will attempt, in some manner, and not necessarily maliciously, to steer the narrative in favor of itself and its people. Regardless of incitement, Palestine and the Palestinian government has been hampered in its ability to advocate on a world-wide scale for its people by the fact that it has been on the defensive since 1948. Almost any american would agree that the revolutionary war was a justified struggle against a technologically superior foe. I believe that a comparison between residents of the US pushing for their freedom and the Palestinian's struggle today is not a stretch at all. In fact, I would argue that Israel's actions against the Palestinian people are far more aggressive and violent than the British Empire's actions towards the American Colonies. Israel's actions are well documented to be pushing the limits of international law, and I believe that this article should better emphasize that fact.

Here is an article from a source that is (I believe) reputable and factual. AsimovtheCat (talk) 18:08, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

References

More info on Holy Sites issue

I'd like to get more info in the article pertaining to concern over the holy sites. Is there agreement that this section ought to be further expanded upon? Tyrone Madera (talk) 21:14, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 May 2021

Israel removed all its settlements and soldiers from Gaza in 2005 turning administration over to FATA. After a brief civil war the terror group HAMAS took control. FATA still controls the Arabs living in the West Bank. 65.129.73.191 (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 May 2021 (2)

I would like you to clarify that Gaza is ruled oppressinly and undemocraticly by Hamas (a terror organization) which Iran support directly and that if Hamas would not be a terror organization and Gaza would be officially a nation they would be committing a double war crime, firing rockets from civilian areas to civilian areas. The terror organizations involved in the conflict must not be ignored!

I wrote only about the critical details I that bother me the most but the reasons you prevent free editing are the same reasons you should do the research yourselves to make sure you do not provide partial information on such a sensitive subject, misinformation can be as damaging as false information.

I am grateful for your time reading my request :)

85.250.117.253 (talk) 20:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC) 85.250.117.253 (talk) 20:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:43, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 June 2021

The conflict has been occurring since 1948 leading the conflict to be 73 years NOT 53 years long. Source:The Washington Post 104.222.18.178 (talk) 02:41, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: The 53 years specifically refers to the occupation of the West Bank, so that number appears to be correct. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:21, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

RandomCanadian, Should it be included in the article as an independent sentence then? It seems like the total length of the conflict would be good to know for readers. Tyrone Madera (talk) 18:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Tyrone Madera: If there are sources, yes. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:30, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Suggest putting a link to "Arab-Israeli conflict" at the top

• Seems this would be helpful:
• See also: "Arab-Israeli conflict" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Will-SeymoreIII (talk • contribs) 23:58, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Will-SeymoreIII (talk)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 August 2021

You say Israel "occupies" the west bank, this is not universally accepted. Please change the language to an ambiguous one. Thank you. UltraAshkinazicJew (talk) 04:41, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:24, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Biased images

The article features an image of a fatally wounded Israeli child, a wounded Israeli child, and an exploded Israeli bus. There are no images of Palestinian casualties - yet according to the Fatalities section (tucked away right at the bottom), many times more Palestinians than Israelis have been killed or wounded in the conflict. According to this source (https://www.statista.com/chart/16516/israeli-palestinian-casualties-by-in-gaza-and-the-west-bank/) 5,590 Palestinians vs 251 Israelis have been killed from 2008 to 2020. The images in the article are not balanced and therefore violate WP:UNDUE. Autonova (talk) 10:38, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah so true Nlivataye (talk) 18:20, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Then add some from WP:RS 174.76.160.36 (talk) 22:09, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

They won't show it so that they can play victim in people's eyes and continue illegally occupying Palestine and killing children they've been manipulating media and news for almost a century now — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.180.178.38 (talk) 04:49, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Fact-free nonsense. There is no entity called 'Palestine', and Israel is not in breach of any 'law' so cannot be 'illegally' occupying anything. Try again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.248.160 (talk) 11:18, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Shame-free Israeli propaganda. You deny that a Palestinian people and culture exist. A serious form of violence, according to "reputable sources." 71.184.94.206 (talk) 20:06, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

if there would be pics they would be able to be shown . COme and see for youself! 213.8.65.165 (talk) 16:24, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Added one of Muhammad al-Durrah in the first step towards corrective balance. Woefully, there are no commons pictures of Gaza in the aftermath of the 2014 bombing. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:20, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I cant seem to find your image, has it been deleted or something? ProgrammerinEZ (talk) 16:20, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

@ProgrammerinEZ: Yes, it got swept away by a bot for not having a non-free use rationale, and I'm not sure I can provide one sufficient to pass muster. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:52, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

thats rather sad, is it that hard to find proper imagery thats allowed to be used? ProgrammerinEZ (talk) 18:34, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

For conflict images, yes, because so many of the photos are owned by the press bodies that were there in the war zones to take the photos. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:49, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

You cant use a non-free image in the way it was originally intended. But there are lots of images released under an appropriate license. nableezy - 19:00, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Most images can not be added as it is copyrighted; we can only use public-domain images. ZetaFive (talk) 21:50, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I removed two images, the first for being entirely unrelated to the section it was in, the second for giving UNDUE weight to one side where the text show the opposite weight in the sources. nableezy - 19:00, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Difference between those not recognizing Palestine and not recognizing Israel

Between

 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_the_State_of_Palestine
 - https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/Palestine_recognition_only.svg

and

 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_Israel
 - https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/Countries_recognizing_Israel.svg

result:

 - https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Palestine_Israel_recognition_difference.svg
 - https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=Palestine_Israel_recognition_difference.svg&title=Special:MediaSearch&go=Go

blue: Countries that have not recognised the State of Palestine
lightred: Countries that have never recognized Israel
darkred: Countries that have withdrawn recognition of Israel
semidarkred: Countries that have suspended or cut relations with Israel
gray: Countries that have recognised both the State of Palestine and Israel
— Preceding unsigned comment added by IvanM376 (talk • contribs) 23:44, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 March 2022 about the deaths on both sides

122.180.178.38 (talk) 04:46, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  melecie  t - 05:20, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Potential New Addition to Article

User:Carter McCrae/Israeli–Palestinian_conflict

Hello everyone, I've been working on a project regarding environmental issues associated with this conflict. It breaks down some of the problems revolving around resources like water, fertile soil and territory. Feel free to make an necessary changes to the article addition and I hope it can be published!

Thanks everyone Carter McCrae (talk) 15:19, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I responded at the article talk page a while ago, no reply though.Selfstudier (talk) 14:04, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Recent Editing

I must make some additional comment regarding this edit and the refs added at the same time.

First, BRD was ignored (again).

An inline primary source reference (Gei report) was added to support the statement "The Israeli government and the European Union have criticized Palestinian schoolbooks for their anti-Semitic content and incitement to violence, martyrdom, and jihadism."

Nothing of the sort appears in that report, for a start it is neither the EU nor the Israeli government. The source says "Direct calls for violence against Israelis were not found in the analysed textbooks." and "The analysis revealed a complex picture: on one hand the textbooks adopt UNESCO standards and criteria established within international education discourse, such as material on human rights. Yet on the other hand they express antagonism towards Israel within the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This ambivalence is made clear in the study where it explains the finding that many sections or chapters are dedicated to themes such as tolerance and the observation of human rights but at the same time the textbooks contain anti-Semitic narratives and glorifications of violence. Both these points are presented and contextualised in detail in the study."

The GEI report is mentioned briefly in one of the other three sources added (two from the Jerusalem Post and one from Algemeiner (humph)) and says, in a cherry picked misrepresentation from the quote above "The textbooks in question have demonstrated "antisemitic narratives and glorification of violence," according to the EU-commissioned Georg Eckert Institute."

The other Jerusalem Post article goes on at length about Impact-se, the principal author of many of the allegations about Palestinian/UNWRA texts, the Gei study dismisses its claims as “exaggerated” and based on “methodological shortcomings”. No mention of this.

Partly because of these allegations (and the now comprehensively rebutted false allegations of the Israeli government about 6 NGOs), EU funding to the Palestinians was frozen. It has been unfrozen without conditions, no mention of that either.

Finally, no mention of the parallel accusations regarding Israeli text books (this deficiency has been remedied by a subsequent edit).

The actual report is here. And read Assaf David for the other side of the coin.

In summary, a wholly unhelpful POV edit, why I reverted it to begin with. Selfstudier (talk) 10:47, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Also this from today "The committee also voted against a proposal submitted by a group of right-wing deputies condemning the educational curricula, and asking the commission to take practical measures to combat allegations of anti-Semitism in Palestinian books." Selfstudier (talk) 10:55, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

The whole inclusion is also veering towards overreach: this is a 'conflict' history and reports about educational curricula are a distinctly meta form of content. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:49, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

If one were to veer in any direction regarding this content, I would suggest that further summarization/contraction, not expansion, would be the way to go. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:53, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

The indoctrination of children to hate their enemy could be "meta", but goes to show the seriousness of the conflict. 71.184.94.206 (talk) 20:15, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Also agree that the disputed edit in question is problematic in that it expanded one viewpoint based on sources that have evidently engaged in cherry-picking. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:57, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Typo in lead

" and it's later electoral challenger" in the fifth paragraph of the lead needs correcting. 208.127.199.150 (talk) 09:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: War and the Environment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 May 2022 and 6 August 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Carter McCrae (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Milan Rosen.

— Assignment last updated by Karanaconda (talk) 18:38, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Bennett no longer prime minister

Lapid is now prime minister. It still says Bennett in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.17.211.15 (talk) 13:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Fixed. Selfstudier (talk) 13:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Why doesn't this article mention that major human rights organizations have labeled Israel an apartheid state?

Seems strange to right an article about this conflict but exclude the assessments of major human rights organizations. 2601:644:9380:6120:8474:7026:C0AE:5161 (talk) 15:02, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

It's not a very up-to-date article, but yes, it's a bit of an omission. I've added a brief note on the subject under the section entitled 'present status' [1]. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:25, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

"The Conflict in Palestine" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect The Conflict in Palestine and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 10#The Conflict in Palestine until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:54, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

there is. 100.15.61.59 (talk) 23:24, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Israel Human Rights abuses unmentioned

This article is missing a lot, It doesn't include how Al Jazeera journalist Shireen Abu Akleh was shot by a IDF unit and how the Israel gov. tried to blame it on Palestine. It also doesn't mention the Israel police beating of mourners for her. Also this article fails to mention IDF raiding a Al-Aqsa mosque and the incidents that happened there, the missile conflict between the two nations in 2021 conflict, and how Israel bombed al-Jalaa. SocialistFootballer (talk) 16:31, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

So it is, agree this article needs some updating. Selfstudier (talk) 16:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

We already have a List of journalists killed during the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, why single out a single incident? Dimadick (talk) 17:12, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

but none of these are mentioned or tagged in the article SocialistFootballer (talk) 21:10, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

There is some ongoing discussion about how hr abuses by Israel should be covered in the article/lead of of Israel, I am not saying we should not cover it independently here but it seems sensible to take into account the discussions there. It seems due to include, but exactly what sort of material and how much of it would be due is more debatable.Selfstudier (talk) 14:07, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Adding a link to Israel and apartheid

Hello all, hope you are having a good sunday. I have many many jewish friends and one palestinian friend. I know this is possibly the most sensitive topic to be bringing up. Could we consider adding a link to Israel and apartheid under Present status section in the "See also" format. I think it's time to start considering this. Although I can't make the edit myself as I have fewer than 500 edits, I can certainly take responsibility for having asked others to make the edit on my behalf.

Psst. Mossad, feel free to check my post history if you'd like ;). Theheezy (talk) 04:08, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

The second paragraph has that wikilink so it is not appropriate to add a See also that duplicates an existing wikilink. Fettlemap (talk) 05:30, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Then I would vote for making it more clearer to find this link while searching for the word "apartheid" on the main page. Could you specify the text under which this link shows up? I tried to find it for approx 2 minutes and couldn't.

Could we make the text clearer and include the word apartheid explicitly with this link. Theheezy (talk) 06:14, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done Selfstudier (talk) 07:40, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

My most humble and gracious thanks, I'll remember this. :) Theheezy (talk) 08:45, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

No gencoide?

I just Deleted word “genocide” from Myanmar Refuges and Palestine refuges after the discuss genocide should in wiki Voice 2001:FB1:18D:7075:D5D0:6431:7918:6880 (talk) 04:50, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

You deleted genocide from the page called "Rohingya genocide"? Chamaemelum (talk) 05:02, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Victory of lawyers cunning delete word genocide

Israel did not genocide Palestine it just conflict about land 2001:FB1:18D:7075:D5D0:6431:7918:6880 (talk) 04:56, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

This article does not state that it is or isn't a genocide. Chamaemelum (talk) 05:02, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Infobox update

Syria should be removed as an independent mention in the Belligerents section of the infobox (under "Supported by:" for the Palestinian side), since it was readmitted into the Arab League on 7 May 2023 and is no longer suspended. TheDoodbly (talk) 03:33, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Odd weighting

This page seems overly skewed towards the peace process, which, despite having its own page at Israeli–Palestinian peace process, appears to account for a disproportionate amount of the content on this page. It feels like there should be a bit more history here, a bit less peace process and a more linked child article sections Iskandar323 (talk) 12:29, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Particularly since there has not been a peace process for a decade. Selfstudier (talk) 12:39, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Tru dat. Actually, there's some weird stuff nested under peace process in the gargantuan sub-contents. Maybe someone just made a header level error. Anyway, looks like some can be split out. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:47, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Article lacks academic writing tone

It reads like a series of news articles rather then an encyclopedia. 2001:56A:F8F2:E200:D448:95E9:500C:97DD (talk) 16:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

“Israeli-Palestinian War”?

Both entities have officially declared states of war, this is no longer just a conflict but an all out war. Lohengrin03 (talk) 06:58, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

It's a war. Here in Macedonia on news stations they are calling it the "Israeli-Palestinian War". I think a new page needs to be created. Andrew012p (talk) 14:04, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

It appears a new page has been created (and already translated in 25 languages) here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_2023_Gaza%E2%88%92Israel_conflict. It's more a question of editing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict article to properly incorporate the new developments. FeetSupremacy (talk) 14:20, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

There have been multiple incidents before, so renaming this to War wouldn't be fully accurate because it never started as a war. RPI2026F1 (talk) 20:35, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Why not have a casualty and fatality count from both sides.

First off the 21,500+ casualties (1965–2013) is outdated by 10 years. There should be a separate fatality and casualty count from both sides that shows how many people have perished from both Israel and Palestine. Barry Bruh Benson (talk) 23:26, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

"...is one of the world's longest continuing conflicts"

I seriously, seriously doubt this will lead to any changes (especially since that sentence is sourced to BBC News, and looking at Wikipedia alone is completely and utterly original research), but I'd like to point out that in the article that sentence itself links to, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is currently 77th in terms of all conflicts and 10th in terms of ongoing conflicts, neither rank of which exactly strikes me as deserving the title of "one of the world's longest" (which to my ears would imply, I don't know, top 3 or 5 at lowest). 2603:8001:4542:28FB:45A4:B472:30D3:8492 (talk) 06:59, 11 October 2023 (UTC) (Please direct talk page messages here instead)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source, so the page linked to there is not a useful reference. I suspect a more useful phrasing may however be "one of the longest-running conflicts in contemporary history", with scope for potentially adding that it also involves the longest modern occupation and possibly also the longest modern siege. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:44, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Arriba Israel hijos de

arriba israe5 200.57.20.213 (talk) 19:57, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The article is full of lies and false informations

The article is full of lies and false 41.92.57.17 (talk) 21:57, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

in which ways? Teenyplayspop (talk) 13:59, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Casualties update (2023)

Casualties should include the 2023 war, which obviously would increase the number significantly for both sides. 2001:569:57B2:4D00:3100:E760:77D2:71D3 (talk) 20:15, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Missing hyperlinks in "history" section

"The first Palestinian uprising began in 1987" should link "First intifada" page. Yasser Arafat's name should be hyperlinked to his page. "Palestinian Liberation Organization" should be linked to its page. "Hamas" should link to its page. CSpad (talk) 17:20, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks#Should Operation Al-Aqsa Flood by Hamas included in the list of Islamist Terrorist attacks?

An editor has started an RfC asking "Should Operation Al-Aqsa Flood by Hamas be included in the List of Islamist terrorist attacks?" at Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks#Should Operation Al-Aqsa Flood by Hamas included in the list of Islamist Terrorist attacks?. Interested editors are invited to participate. TarnishedPath^talk 23:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Fall 2023 HIST 401

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 September 2023 and 14 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Qtzctl (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Qtzctl (talk) 01:12, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

changed the list to normal text in Palestinian refugees

as suggested, but do not know how to remove the invitation to do this change. Also dared to change the paragraphs below "the most common arguments" to a numbered list of three Vitosmo (talk) 18:43, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Edit of the "Criticism of casualty statistics" section

HI, I would like to modify the "Criticism of casualty statistics" section with updated data from the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem. In particular, regarding House Demolitions in Palestine by Israel from 2004 to 2023 before the start of the current war, Minors left homeless = 4807, People left homeless = 23687, Total demolitions = 7837. As regards the number of people killed from 2000-10-02 to 2023-09-24 the result is: 10,092 Palestinians killed and 1,029 Israelis, equal to 90.72% and 9.25% respectively. These data taken from the B'Tselem website can be found here: https://www.kaggle.com/code/gianlab/statistics-on-the-israeli-palestinian-conflict. Can someone please edit the "Criticism of casualty statistics" section because I can't? Thank you Lovepeacejoy404 (talk) 05:08, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 November 2023

Please change "Beginning in the mid-20th century, it is one of the world's longest continuing conflicts." to "The conflict can be traced back to the first century C.E, with the Roman occupation of the Kingdom of Israel (e.1020 BCE). It is considered to be one of the world's longest continuing conflicts. The ethnic and religious conflict was escalated in the mid-20th century with the UN partition designating a Jewish State and a Palestinian State."

It is misleading to say the conflict begins with the partition by the UN. It should at least have a link to the other wikipedia page History_of_Israel and reference that the conflict is based in historical context predating the arbitrary 1900s, pre-colional influence is important.

Source for date : https://embassies.gov.il/UnGeneva/AboutIsrael/history/Pages/History-Israel-Timeline.aspx Crrmehc (talk) 18:31, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: This sort of background is much more appropriate for Arab–Israeli conflict. This article is much more narrowly focused so we can provide significant detail without bloating out the article too much Cannolis (talk) 21:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Nigerian group’s proposed solution to the conflict

I’m not sure if this proposal or the group behind it is notable enough to cover on Wikipedia or not. But it’s certainly an “outside-the-box” idea.2600:1014:B031:55F7:6407:B405:8D73:5047 (talk) 04:41, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Edit request on reference to Gisha

The section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict#Blockade_of_the_Gaza_Strip refers to 'Gisha', which is supposed to be an Israeli human rights organization: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gisha_(human_rights_organization). However, the reference seems to refer to a neighborhood in Tehran, Iran (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gisha). Youngrubby (talk) 23:03, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Fixed Wl. Selfstudier (talk) 23:20, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Need to be a bit more neutral

All I'm seeing is reports slanted to the "Palestinians". Please direct this to a more neutral stance and not side with one side. 167.1.146.100 (talk) 17:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

@167.1.146.100: I assume whatever you were referring to has changed by now? but what did you mean by putting "Palestinian" in quotes? Did you mean the word was being used inappropriately? Or were you implying something else? Irtapil (talk) 19:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

removed insertion of genocide

This claim was added twice, based on language used by a few political theorists, and linking to the newly created genocide_against_Palestinians

"The violence committed by Israelis against the Palestinians has frequently been characterised by scholars and analysts as an act of genocide."

This does not need its own section, and if included should be quoted to a source, not synth'ed, as it a controversial use of the term uncommon in reliable sources; Palestine does not appear in list of genocides. But the allegation is made by some, and equally called out by others for diluting the concept. Any mention of genocide should note the language of the Hamas Charter. – SJ + 02:52, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

the adl isn't a reliable source. Teenyplayspop (talk) 05:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Chomsky on the Hamas 'charter':

"First of all, Hamas charter means practically nothing. The only people who pay attention to it are Israeli propagandists, who love it. It was a charter put together by a small group of people under siege, under attack in 1988. And it’s essentially meaningless. There are charters that mean something, but they’re not talked about. So, for example, the electoral program of Israel’s governing party, Likud, states explicitly that there can never be a Palestinian state west of the Jordan River. And they not only state it in their charter, that’s a call for the destruction of Palestine, explicit call for it. And they don’t only have it in their charter, you know, their electoral program, but they implement it. That’s quite different from the Hamas charter."

Would be happy to list relevant and reliable sourcing on this too Teenyplayspop (talk) 05:41, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Exhibit 1

"The 1999 Likud party platform “flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river”."

[2]https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2009/2/20/profile-the-likud-party

Exhibit 2 and 3

"A plan which relinquishes parts of western Eretz Israel, undermines our right to the country, unavoidably leads to the establishment of a "Palestinian State," jeopardizes the security of the Jewish population, endangers the existence of the State of Israel. and frustrates any prospect of peace."

"The PLO is no national liberation organization but an organization of assassins, which the Arab countries use as a political and military tool, while also serving the interests of Soviet imperialism, to stir up the area. Its aim is to liquidate the State of Israel, set up an Arab country instead and make the Land of Israel part of the Arab world. The Likud government will strive to eliminate these murderous organizations in order to prevent them from carrying out their bloody deeds"

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/original-party-platform-of-the-likud-party Teenyplayspop (talk) 05:50, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps we need a Likud charter page to balance the Hamas Charter one. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:28, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

That would be great. The only space that i can find it on wikipedia is under Likud, the political party. Teenyplayspop (talk) 19:03, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Any mention of genocide should note the language of the Likud charter. Just swap the words Israel and Palestine around to favor your sentiments and you still have a genocide. Sorry dude

"The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river. The Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state. Thus, for example, in matters of foreign affairs, security, immigration, and ecology, their activity shall be limited in accordance with imperatives of Israel's existence, security and national needs."

[3]https://web.archive.org/web/20070930181442/https://www.knesset.gov.il/elections/knesset15/elikud_m.htm Teenyplayspop (talk) 06:01, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

On the wikipedia perennial and reliable sources page:

"Some editors consider the ADL's opinion pieces not reliable, and that they should only be used with attribution. Some editors consider the ADL a biased source for Israel/Palestine related topics that should be used with caution, if at all."

dang, it's almost like a pro-zionist organization is going to be pro-zionist in its coverage of a zionist state. Pick a better source and maybe read some sourced material Teenyplayspop (talk) 06:09, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

"... and equally called out by others for diluting the concept [of genocide]." You cited the ADL. I agree with @Teenyplayspop that the ADL is unreliable.

Instead, consider the following sources for the claim that 'the violence [committed against the Palestinians] has frequently been characterised by scholars and analysts as an act of genocide': https://twailr.com/public-statement-scholars-warn-of-potential-genocide-in-gaza/, where 880 scholars signed a public statement that deemed the Israeli government to be inciting genocide in Palestine; https://www.addameer.org/sites/default/files/icc-letter-1697782247-pdf.pdf, where 100 civil society organisations and 6 genocide scholars, calling on the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, also claimed 'incitement to genocide'; and https://ccrjustice.org/sites/default/files/attach/2023/10/Israels-Unfolding-Crime_ww.pdf where the Center for Constitutional Rights deemed that the Israeli government is "attempting to commit, if not actively committing, genocide ... against the Palestinian people ...' - as cited in Genocide against Palestinians. All in all, I disagree with even titling this a 'war', but that is for another thread. NOKO444 (talk) 08:23, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

This is copied and pasted from:

THE CONVENTION ON THE PREVENTION AND 41.231.180.66 (talk) 20:58, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

the flags are inconsistent

Everyone has a national flag except Hamas.

All-Palestine Protectorate - Palestine Liberation Organization - Palestinian National Authority - Fatah - Hamas

Hamas (with their allied factions) use the Palestinian flag, but it probably would be inappropriate to show them with that?

But then Fatah should probably have a political flag as well for consistency.

Were the others all unified national movements? Or should some of those have faction flags too?

Irtapil (talk) 19:56, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 December 2023

103.157.201.126 (talk) 20:28, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

USA is ally to Israel in this war

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Parham wiki (talk) 20:40, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 November 2023

the data on this page (the Israel - Palestine conflict) is highly biased and DOES NOT reflect the truth or the jewish-israeli side. I mean calling "the independece war" the Palestinian war, calling hamas "militant islamic group " and not terrorists and calling israel an occupation is straight up gaslighting.. check it out and i suggest you change it, since now wrong information is killing people. 2.53.177.216 (talk) 06:24, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Everything in this article reflects reliable sources. — Czello ^(music) 08:56, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

What is wrong with calling Hamas a "militant Islamic group"?

In my personal opinion they are primarily nationalist and only secondarily religious, but they are generally regarded as Islamist, and I doubt we could find a good reference to call them something else?

And technically the militant wing is Al Qassam, while Hamas is the political wing. Should it say "political party" instead of "militant group" for Hamas? But that could be controversial given they are usually referred to as Hamas in all their capacities in English language news media?

Irtapil (talk) 20:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

They started out as a political party, but even their original charter dating back to the 1980's is full of antisemetism. They created a revised version in 2017 trying to use less harsh language, but continue to quote the hateful antisemetism tied to the ideas of their original charter in footage of them addressing their members. You can find these and ask any arabic-speaking friends to translate for you if you don't trust the captions they might already have. In addition, they have been known to torture and kill members of their rival political party, the Fatah. Hamas is classified as a terrorist group by so many nations for valid reasons.

Heres some more information about what Palestinians in Gaza have to say about living under hamas rule: https://www.peacecomms.org/gaza

Just as a reminder the press in Gaza is not free and these interviews could only be shared anonymously for the safety of those participating. The footage was reviewed and verified by multiple sources before being shared.

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2023/10/hamas-covenant-israel-attack-war-genocide/675602/ Infodump44 (talk) 06:23, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

And I am probably wasting my time replying to an anon, but how is it killing people? Or who is it killing? I definitely think we should use the least provocative language possible to minimize incitement. But you seem to be saying we should call them "terrorists"? Isn't that language MORE violent? That is exactly the language being used to justify the current violence in Gaza? That and fanciful comparisons to ISIS.

And since you seem to think about this very differently to how I do, I should maybe clarify, "Nationalist" is not a defence of them, violent nationalism is one of my least favourite ideologies. Nationalist is also how I would describe the motivations for the current actions of the IDF.

Irtapil (talk) 20:24, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Proposal for 'Casualties and Losses'

As it stands, the casualties and losses is very poor '21,500+ casualties (1965–2013)' This leaves out a good 30 years of the conflict, and some of its bloodiest years (Nakba, current war, etc...)

Of course, it is very difficult to get a good sum of total casualties without engaging in Original Research. As such I have a proposal:

split Casualties and losses into several sections detailing already well recognised death counts in wars, injuries and displacements caused by the conflict. so looking only at conflict pages with attachments to this page. What this could look like is:

More than 700,000 Palestinians displaced with a further 413,000 Palestinians displaced in the Six-Day War.
6,373 Israeli and 3,000-13,000 Palestinian deaths in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.
654 Israeli and 1,000-2,400 PLO deaths in the 1982 Lebanon War.
1,962 Palestinians and 179-200 Israeli deaths in the First Intifada.
1,010 Israelis and 3,179-3,354 Palestinian deaths in the Second Intifada.
1,116-1,417 Palestinian deaths in the Gaza War (2008-2009).
2,000+ Palestinians deaths in the 2014 Gaza War.
At least 18,000 Palestinians and 1,382 Israelis killed in the 2023 Israel-Hamas War with a further 1,900,000 Palestinians displaced within Gaza and 500,000 Israelis displaced.

More citations would be added in practice for the actual category on the page, but this gets the general idea across. I feel this would be an improvement to the current casualty claims. What does everyone else think? Genabab (talk) 16:08, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Change Hamas's definition from "militant islamic group" to a terror organisation

The title says it all.. the data in this page is highly biased and DOES NOT reflect the truth or the jewish-israeli side. I mean calling "the independece war" the Palestinian war, not calling hamas terrorists and calling israel an occupation is straight up gaslighting. SHAME ON YOU. 2.53.177.216 (talk) 06:19, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Zionism is not the same as Judaism, as many Jewish individuals stand with Palestine, so please don't refer to the State of Israel as the "Jewish-Israeli side." Also, Israel has been occupying Palestine since 1967. You can't really talk about this issue in a nuetral way when one side has been commiting Genocide and ethnic cleansning for decades. Even if we were to look at this from an unbiased perspective we would have to acknowledge the reality that Isreal has power that Palestine does not have. Also, calling Hamas terrorists can lead to further Islamophobic rhetoric. Merkurïïï (talk) 19:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

We actually do acknowledge on Hamas's article that it is designated as a terrorist organisation by many institutions, academics, and nations. We don't (and shouldn't) shy away from that phrasing out of fear it could create Islamophobia. — Czello ^(music) 19:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Hamas is classified as a terrorist group by many established organizations and nations and should be referred to as such in this post. Please visit https://www.peacecomms.org/gaza - they have conducted anonymous interviews (reveiwed and verified by Arab News and Times of Israel) with Palestinians living in Gaza who speak out about how hamas has mistreated them and abused their power. The fear of perpetuating Islamaphobia is extremely valid, but shouldn't mean that terrorists get to hide under a title that enables other to applaud their horrific actions. It's important to not generalize people simply by their ethnicity, religion, race, etc. Call out terrorism for what it is when you see it, no exceptions. Infodump44 (talk) 06:11, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

@Infodump44 It's 100% relative. Hamas is a terrorist organization to countries friendly to Israel. It's not a terrorist organization to countries friendly to Hamas. 47.132.127.113 (talk) 14:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

This is too long cannot read it all to understand

This is too long cannot it all to understand 110.225.230.76 (talk) 13:45, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Frankly, for one of the longest and most contentious conflicts in recent history, you should be glad it isn't longer. PhilosophicalSomething (talk) 05:39, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

true. WGATOP (talk) 23:11, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

"improper sourcing"

@Makeandtoss thanks for editing my changes from yesterday, I agree the current version is better. I had a question about your edit summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict&oldid=1196427781

What do you mean by "improper sourcing"? DMH43 (talk) 16:23, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Let’s use proper citation formats for book such as linking from google book, not Amazon. But more importantly, although the 17% is interesting, it is not really a general summary of this article’s body. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:25, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Does the lede need to mention specific agreements?

@user:פעמי-עליון hope you don’t mind me tagging you, but figured it would be constructive to do so.

Per your adding back the mention of Oslo into one of the lede paras, is there any due significance regarding this specific set of agreements to warrant its inclusion in the lede when no other peace agreements are mentioned there? Yr Enw (talk) 16:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for tagging, of course that's ok!

I think Oslo should be mentioned because it is by far the most significant agreement, and as I wrote, a pivotal moment in establishing the current status quo; we can't say that about any other agreement, and I think it justifies a mention in the lead. פעמי-עליון (talk) 18:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! I see your point, yes we do very much still live within the Oslo parameters. Apologies if it's a bit nitpicky, it's the wording "Progress towards a negotiated solution" feels a bit weird to me. I'm trying to think of a suggested alternative, though. I'll give it some thought. Yr Enw (talk) 21:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I totally agree with you, I don't really like this wording either, but it's sometimes hard to express myself in English (since it isn't my native language)... I'll thank you if you find an alternative :)

An unrelated anecdote about Oslo being the status quo: the original agreement stated that Oslo was temporary, for five years, after which the conditions should have been renagotiated, but so many things happened in those five years so no one bothered to renagotiate... Area A, B and C should have, at least in a legal point of view, been abandoned or rediscussed more than 20 years ago! פעמי-עליון (talk) 21:49, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Can you share a source which describes this? My understanding is that Oslo left certain issues to "final status" negotiations, but this didn't mean renegotiating everything. DMH43 (talk) 16:29, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Nakba deaths

In the infobox, can we put that 15000+ died in the nakba? source: 1, 2, 3, Personisinsterest (talk) 02:27, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

There's already an estimate for the 1948 war, are you referring to a different to something different? DMH43 (talk) 06:54, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Actually the Nakba article itself lacks this information as well. I made a post about this at the talk page there recently but I didn't recieve any response. See: Talk:Nakba#Casualties / Total Deaths of Palestinians

I don't believe the sources you've cited here are sufficiently reliable to add the 15,000 number to the articles, although I am unfamiliar with palestineremembered.com.

@Levivich, do you happen to have any information about this?

-IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 08:58, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry I don't, it seems to be a complex question (total casualties in I-P conflict), I'd imagine getting an NPOV number would require looking at a few recent books about the I-P conflict by a variety of major authors. I've never looked myself. Levivich (talk) 16:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

connection of palestin with quranic surah

what is the connection between palestin and surat room 39.37.87.143 (talk) 17:47, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

International involvement in I-P conflict

The discussion above made me notice another thing: the words "Soviet" and "USSR" do not appear in this article. "Russia" is mentioned. Russia, Britain, and the US, are mentioned but chiefly as peacemakers or mediators. Unless I've missed it, I don't see any mention of the involvement of these three powers (UK, US, USSR) in the I-P conflict... including the various powers' support of and opposition to Zionists/Israel and Palestinian Arabs. There is also no mention of the "proxy conflict" angle (that I-P is or was at one point a proxy war between East and West).

Similarly, there's a problem with how inter-Arab rivalries are portrayed. They are mentioned, but in the section called "Palestinian-on-Palestinian violence", which begins "Fighting among rival Palestinian and Arab movements has played a crucial role in shaping Israel's security policy towards Palestinian militants..." which has a {cn} tag and for good reason, because it's not an NPOV statement. First, Palestinian-Arabs-vs-other-Arabs is not "Palestinian-on-Palestinian," and neither is Arab-v-Arab. There is an entire aspect to the I-P conflict that is about internal Palestinian politics and divisions (e.g., al-Husayni family v. Nashashibi family), but there were also politics and divisions between Palestinians and Jordan, Palestinians and Egypt, between Egypt and Jordan about Palestine, and so on. These intra- and inter-Arab rivalries didn't just play a crucial role in Israel's security policy (as if Arab history is just an Israeli security issue), it also played a crucial role in the I-P conflict, in the history of Palestine and Israel. Second, just as the "proxy war" viewpoint of int'l powers doesn't seem to be present in the article, neither does the "land grab" viewpoint of Arab powers (that Arab intervention was motivated by foreign Arab powers' desire to annex Palestine, as opposed to securing Palestinian independence).

So in sum, I think the lead (and the body) should not present other countries solely as mediators, but also explain their meddling and its influence on ths conflict, including that of neighboring Arab states as well as major Eastern and Western powers. Levivich (talk) 20:03, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Use of "native"

@Yr Enw you mentioned in your edit summary that "native" is loaded and not NPOV, can you elaborate? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict&oldid=1196399630

Most respected historians I'm familiar with (including Benny Morris) refer to the Palestinian population as the "native" population, so I'm not sure what the issue is. DMH43 (talk) 17:20, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, and I must apologise for not having got to the Aftermath on Oslo while I'm here. I'm not saying I disagree with the term, but using it in wikivoice seemed to me to potentially invite more problems than it resolved. I accept "native" has some currency when looking at the way Palestinians have been systematically oppressed and disenfranchised to the benefit of the Jewish communities in Israel-Palestine, but the way it was written made it sound like Jews are not native to the area and appeared to me (perhaps incorrectly) that it was trying to make an inference that the "native" label conferred more legitimacy on the Palestinian claim to the land. That's why I felt it was a potential NPOV issue Yr Enw (talk) 20:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I see, thanks for clarifying. I had intended the use of "native" to help with readability rather than for a value judgement. I'll think about the tone as you suggested more carefully in future edits, thanks again DMH43 (talk) 20:10, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, also. It appears the sentence in question was removed anyway? Yr Enw (talk) 20:27, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Zionism and Aliyah

I responded to a ping above which made me look at this article for the first time in a long time, and I'm really surprised to see that the word "Aliyah" is nowhere in the article. The link is piped to "Jewish immigration" in the sentence "The 1917 Balfour Declaration issued by Britain, which promised creation of a "Jewish homeland in Palestine," created early tensions in the region after waves of Jewish immigration". But the First Aliyah started decades before Balfour. And Balfour didn't create the tensions. Balfour was the point at which the British supported Zionism; Balfour was in response to tensions--including, you know, World War I.

Similarly, the word "Zionism" barely makes an appearance in this article. It's piped under "among the Jews" in the sentence "birth of major nationalist movements among the Jews and among the Arabs." Arab nationalism is piped under "among the Arabs." This makes it seem like these are two nationalist movements that arose in the same place at the same time, which is not accurate. The lead talks about "Zionist militias" without explaining who or what a Zionist is (or, crucially, that there were different kinds of Zionists).

At bottom, this article seems to generally omit the events of the I-P conflict prior to 1917. I'd submit that nobody can understand the origin of the I-P conflict without, for example, understanding the differences between the First Aliyah and the Second Aliyah, the difference between the Old Yishuv and the New Yishuv (the article mentions the "Yishuv" without explaining what it is), the import of events like the World Zionist Congress (including the First Zionist Congress, the Second Zionist Congress, the establishment of agencies like the Jewish National Fund, and the rise of Political Zionism), the difference between moshava, moshav, and kibbutz -- basically, all the pre-WWI stuff. Maybe I missed it but I don't even see any mention of Zionist land purchases at all ... which is weird because the I-P conflict started when Second Aliyah Zionists arrived and started purchasing land and organizing moshavs and kibbutzes (instead of moshava).

Anyway, as I said, I'm not familiar with the history of this particular article and I'm not sure how it came to pass that all this early history has been omitted and instead it sort of tells this story of concurrent national movements arising and tensions between them being created by the British ... which doesn't seem like a very NPOV history. I'm busy expanding a different article and won't be getting into this one anytime soon, but personally these omissions are NPOV-tag worthy IMO. Instead I'm just leaving this note. Levivich (talk) 18:04, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

The material is spread around various articles including Balfour, Mandatory Palestine, Palestine (region), etcetera.

The usual problem, when did it start and why? Selfstudier (talk) 18:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

This is good feedback, I will try to incorporate some of it. I had coincidentally made some related changes just before seeing this post (Aliyah is now linked but not used explicitly) DMH43 (talk) 19:11, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I just took a look at four very different sources to see what they said, in order from right to left:

• Efraim Karsh (2009) [2002] p. 11 goes way back, saying the roots of the conflict stretch to Roman times, but then on page 12 and subsequent, he starts talking about the arrival of Zionists in the 1880s.
• Benny Morris (2008) p. 1 pins it to the arrival of Zionists in the 1880s.
• Ilan Pappe (2022) says on p. 11 (no Google books preview but here is a TWL link) that there are multiple departure points and he can't pick one, but as can be seen from the Table of Contents, the entirety of Chapters 1 and 2 are 1856-1918; Balfour comes at the end of Chapter 2.
• Nur Masalha (2012) chapter 1 is "Zionism and European Settler-Colonialism" and he repeatedly (pp. 44, 70, 168) says the conflict began with the arrival of Zionism in the late 19th century

So all four are starting the story in the late 19th century with the arrival of Zionism, whereas the Wikipedia article starts in 1917. To Self's point above, I'm not sure "when did it start" is really controversial, if the above four authors (from very different schools of thought) agree? Levivich (talk) 19:27, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I was responding to your question I'm not sure how it came to pass that all this early history has been omitted. People keep skating around the questions, not just in this article.

Fwiw, I agree that it started with Zionism but I also think the issue was lifted from minor to major by Balfour (pretty sure I can source that). Selfstudier (talk) 19:29, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree, all the sources treat Balfour as a hugely important event. I guess what I'm saying, to be concrete, is that, for example, the second paragraph of the lead, instead of saying "1917" and talking about Balfour, it should say "1880s" and talk about Zionism, and then later talk about Balfour. Levivich (talk) 19:31, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I actually just looked at DMH's recent edits to the body and yeah, I think that adds some of the needed context. Thanks again. Levivich (talk) 19:35, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

We should probably mention the fact that the British sold the same horse twice, which didn't help matters. Selfstudier (talk) 19:39, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree, McMahon-Hussein Correspondence and Sykes-Picot should be mentioned (at least in the body if not the lead). Levivich (talk) 19:44, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Levivich, thank you for your contribution here and as well for all the work you've done at Nakba.

I'd like to direct your attention to the article 1948 Palestine war, as it is in desperate need of correcting. Whether or not you're interested in working on it I figured it was worth asking.

Thanks again, IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:57, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks... as you anticipated, I did make my way from here over to there, and just posted something on the talk page there just now. Levivich (talk) 22:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a reference elaborating more on this comment "...and organizing moshavs and kibbutzes (instead of moshava)."? DMH43 (talk) 02:03, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Masalha 2012 pp. 39-40; Wolfe 2012 pp. 140-141 (open access); Morris 2004 pp. 366 and 394 Levivich (talk) 02:38, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Just to pick up on one thing you say (“This makes it seem like these are two nationalist movements that arose in the same place at the same time, which is not accurate”). Isn’t it? Same place, yes of course not, but both arose in the late 19th century out of emerging European ideas of human ethnic (and racial, in certain strands) taxonomy. There were certainly stirrings of Arab nationalism in the Hamidian era right when the Zionist movement was gaining significant traction. Yr Enw (talk) 08:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Khalidi suggests that it is both a national and a colonial conflict (see page 8 of 100 years' war) although he does not argue that in the book. DMH43 (talk) 15:53, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Not the same place, for sure, Zionism coming from Europe. While there were both Jews and Arabs living in Palestine at the time, I think it would be a great misrepresentation to suggest, even by implication, that nationalist movements arose amongst Jews and Arabs in Palestine, when it was amongst Arabs in Palestine and Jews not in Palestine (and given that at least some portion if not most of Old Yishuv was anti-Zionist, and even religious Zionists didn't [necessarily] support the secular, political Zionism that lead to Israel).

As for same time, roughly 19th century, sure. But not really the same exact time. The timing -- or order -- matters. And above all, this is a question where it really depends on who you ask. My general impression (as a non-expert laymen, based entirely on having read a couple-few books/papers about this) is nationalism was on the rise everywhere in the 19th century; that Arab nationalism arose in the latter half of the 19th century, before Zionism; that political Zionism arose after that (and was not really connected), end of the 19th century; and that Palestinian nationalism arose in response to Zionism. However, Morris says otherwise: Morris 2008, p. 6: "There was no Arab national movement and not even a hint, in 1881, of a separate Palestinian Arab nationalism." Khalidi 2020 (100 years war), p. 33 says something different: "In fact, Palestinian identity and nationalism are all too often seen to be no more than recent expressions of an unreasoning (if not fanatical) opposition to Jewish national self-determination. But Palestinian identity, much like Zionism, emerged in response to many stimuli, and at almost exactly the same time as did modern political Zionism. The threat of Zionism was only one of these stimuli, just as anti-Semitism was only one of the factors fueling Zionism." Pappe 2017 (Ten Myths about Israel), p. 17 says a third thing, that Palestinian nationalism arose before Zionism: "A thorough and comprehensive study of how Palestinian nationalism arose before the arrival of Zionism can be found in the works of Palestinian historians such as Muhammad Muslih and Rashid Khalidi.5 They show clearly that both elite and non-elite sections of Palestinian society were involved in developing a national movement and sentiment before 1882." And oddly, one of the people Pappe cites in 2017 is Khalidi (but this was before Khalidi's 2020 book I just quoted).

So Morris says Zionism first, then Palestinian nationalism. Khalidi says at the same time. Pappe says Palestinian nationalism first. I don't really know in what order Arab nationalism, Zionism, and Palestinian nationalism arose, but I'm sure it wasn't in the same place, and I don't think Wikipedia should suggest in its own voice that it was at the same time. Levivich (talk) 16:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh sure, I see what you’re saying. Yr Enw (talk) 16:59, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

It’s difficult because manifestations of Arab nationalism and even a kind of Greater Syrian nationalism certainly were emerging during the late Ottoman period, but putting exact dates to it is much harder than dating, say, Herzl’s Der Judenstaat. Yr Enw (talk) 17:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I find putting even inexact dates on anything in this topic area is difficult. It's a topic area where one almost has to write things like: "The war, which some scholars say was not a war, began in November 1947, or, according to some scholars, in May 1948 or 1917 or 1881, and ended in December 1948 or February 1949 or July 1949 or never." Levivich (talk) 04:12, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

)

Selfstudier (talk) 09:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Two state solution

I am not sure how the claim “the majority of peace efforts have centred around a two state solution” (paraphrasing as I’m on a phone) has wound up back in the lede. I thought I had either deleted this or added a dubious tag, but I may be thinking of another article. Nevertheless, the claim is categorically false. Indeed many scholars now view the hitherto peace processes as explicitly stifling Palestinian statehood, not paving the way for it.

Given removing this claim will remove a significant chunk of text in the lede, would appreciate some input on how to revise? My own preference would be to delete the whole bit about the TSS and start the paragraph with “Official negotiations are mediated”. Yr Enw (talk) 08:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, the 2SS is the party line since Oslo and still is right now. I agree that post Netanyahu, it has mainly been lip service, without a serious effort since Kerry but it is still the official international stance, UN and US inclusive. Selfstudier (talk) 12:29, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

It might be the stance, certainly, but I don’t think it’s correct to say (as the present sentence does) any diplomatic efforts have actually been made towards achieving it? Certainly Oslo wasn’t. Yr Enw (talk) 16:52, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed there has been no real diplomatic effort until recently although lip service has been paid to the concept. Last serious go round was Kerry back in 2013/4 not counting the abortive attempt by France in 2017. Perhaps a central point is that everyone knows as a result of these efforts, such as they were, what the outlines of a solution are. Selfstudier (talk) 09:12, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

That's a good point. I'm having a similar discussion on the talk page for the Two-state solution itself, and so I think some reframing is in order to make it clear these are indeed the broadly accepted parameters (as opposed to them having formed the content of significant peace negotiations - which, I suppose, is true of - like you say - some more recent efforts). Yr Enw (talk) 09:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss May I ping you here for your opinion, as you reverted my rewording from "The majority" to "recent" peace efforts (albeit the revert may not have been particularly aimed at this change). Yr Enw (talk) 10:43, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes not aimed at that change. Theoretically, indeed only service has been paid, but it doesn't conflict with saying something around the "stated aim". In practice, the lede has to summarize the body, so this would depend on what exactly the body says about this: if it just narrates what has been happening, or includes critical analysis of the peace process. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:57, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Added some details

In response to some of the comments above, I filled in some gaps in the lead. I could use some feedback on the contribution esp regarding flow and the level of detail needed for the lead. (also if you have feedback on the content itself that would be very appreciated). CC: @Levivich, @Yr Enw, @IOHANNVSVERVS, @Selfstudier DMH43 (talk) 21:19, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for doing this. I think it looks good and addresses the concern I raised about Zionism and Aliyah above. It'll probably be reverted soon. :-D Levivich (talk) 04:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort but please note that the lede is supposed to be a concise and proportional summary of the article's body. Major problems were undue emphasis on the Zionist perspective; undue emphasis on the 1881-1948 period; undue emphasis on details not mentioned in the body. Writing the lede should be based on the article's body, and not based on Pappe's book. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

What should the lead say about Zionism and 1881-1917? Levivich (talk) 14:25, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Maybe filch something from Aliyah#Zionist aliyah (1882_on) In terms of conflict, land purchases (Sursock Purchases) caused friction with dispossessed locals ("There was scarcely a Jewish colony which did not come into conflict at some time with its Arab neighbors,” writes one authority, “and more often than not a land dispute of one form or another lay behind the graver collisions.")(Schneer). Selfstudier (talk) 15:08, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

"Over time Arab protests grew more sophisticated and merged with a developing nationalist movement, of which anti-Zionism was merely a component. Suffice to say here that some politically conscious Arabs regarded Jews not merely as an economic threat to local merchants and farmers but rather as a geopolitical menace to a larger Arab cause." (Schneer) Selfstudier (talk) 15:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I see that the Nakba article has some well sourced summary type material Selfstudier (talk) 12:03, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the body, there is only brief mentions of key milestones such as Balfour declaration in 1917, Arab revolt in 1936, etc. Lede is a summary of the body afterall.. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

The body is deficient but that can be remedied at the same time. Selfstudier (talk) 15:23, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Sure, what I am meaning is that the body should be remedied first, and then the lede as summary can reflect that. But we can't have a lede that doesn't summarize the body. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Technically true but we can bend the rules provided we agree on what should be present in both lead and body and then edit that. Selfstudier (talk) 16:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I moved the content into the body since I agree it was too detailed. Now maybe we can work on the lede based on some of the quotes (or similar ones) you shared DMH43 (talk) 17:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss: What should the lead say about 1881-1917? Since you removed what was there, what do you think should be there instead? Levivich (talk) 15:29, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

While we are on the subject of the lede, I think we should say in the opening couple of sentences that this is an ethno-nationalist conflict, which I can source appropriately if there is agreement. This would follow The Troubles and will enable us to incorporate a bit about Zionism in the lede. As, at present, if I didn’t have any background knowledge of the subject, I’m having a hard time understanding what the core of the conflict is even about. Yr Enw (talk) 15:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Five months before the outbreak of world war, one young Arab confided to his diary: "Palestine is the connecting link which binds the Arabian Peninsula with Egypt and Africa. If the Jews conquer [Palestine] they will prevent the linking of the Arab nation; indeed they will split it into two unconnected parts. This will weaken the cause of Arabism and will prevent its solidarity and unity as a nation." In another entry he put his finger on the crux of the matter, in words that continue to vex us even today:"If this country is the cradle of the Jews’ spirituality and the birthplace of their history, then the Arabs have another undeniable right [to Palestine] which is that they propagated their language and culture in it. [The Jews’] right had died with the passage of time; our right is alive and unshakeable." (Schneer) Selfstudier (talk) 15:19, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Replacing "immigrants" with "settlers" where appropriate

In the sentence "The Israeli–Palestinian conflict has its roots in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, with the development of political Zionism and the arrival of Zionist immigrants to Palestine" I suggest that "Zionist immigrants" be replaced with "Zionist settlers" since this is the typical terminology in the literature, and is more precise. Additionally, it is well known that the movement identified itself as a colonialist movement. It is not until relatively recently that the terminology of the movement changed. DMH223344 (talk) 19:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

"typical terminology in the literature" - can you back that up? I'm not sure having never reviewed the literature for this, but I'd be surprised if "settler" was more common than "immigrant." Are there three diverse history books about I-P that use that terminology? Levivich (talk) 19:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Just to confuse the issue, Scholar Amal Jamal, from Tel Aviv University, has stated, "Israel was created by a settler-colonial movement of Jewish immigrants".) (from Settler colonialism#Palestine, Zionism and Israel, Zionism as settler colonialism refers. Selfstudier (talk) 19:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Morris same: 1948, p. 2: "The first wave of Zionist immigrants—the First 'Aliya (literally, ascent)—brought to Palestine’s shores between 1882 and 1903 some thirty thousand Jewish settlers." Levivich (talk) 19:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Seems overdoing it to change every instance of immigrant to settler, use that which seems most natural or perhaps both if appropriate. Selfstudier (talk) 19:52, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I think both of these quotes highlight that the use of "settler" is more precise. I wouldn't argue that "immigrant" is "wrong", I would just say that omitting mention of "settler" is wrong. (Note, there was a recent edit which replaced a bunch of occurrences of "settler" with "immigrant".) DMH223344 (talk) 19:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Quotes from Morris's 1948 book, pp. 1-4, my emphasis:

[p. 1] The War of 1948 was the almost inevitable result of more than half a century of Arab-Jewish friction and conflict that began with the arrival in Eretz Yisrael (the Land of Israel), or Palestine, of the first Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe in the early 1880s ... [p. 2] The first wave of Zionist immigrants—the First 'Aliya (literally, ascent)—brought to Palestine’s shores between 1882 and 1903 some thirty thousand Jewish settlers ... [p. 3] So the Zionists generally maintained discretion about their objective. In private correspondence, however, the settlers were often forthcoming: 'The ultimate goal . . . is, in time, to take over the Land of Israel and to restore to the Jews the political independence they have been deprived of for these two thousand years ...' ... But once there, the settlers could not avoid noticing the majority native population. It was from them, as two of the first settlers put it, that “we shall . . . take away the country . . . through stratagems[,] without drawing upon us their hostility before we become the strong and populous ones.” ... The bulk of the settlers, of both the first and second waves of immigration (the Second 'Aliya was from 1904 to 1914), planted roots ... [p. 4] The new settlers, beset by an unwonted and difficult climate, unfamiliar diseases, and brigandage, viewed the native inhabitants as, at best, unwanted interlopers from Arabia and, at worst, as rivals for mastery of the land and potential enemies ... Like most European colonists in the third world, the settlers saw the locals as devious and untrustworthy and, at the same time, as simple, dirty, and lazy ... The natives, in turn, regarded the foreign influx as inexplicable and the settlers as strange, foolish, infidel, and vaguely minatory. Initially, the Zionist settlement enterprise was haphazard and disorganized.

He seems to use the terms interchangably. I didn't really realize, and am surprised, that he uses the terms "settler" and "colonial" outright (but not "settler-colonial"). I'm not sure what to make of that. But if Morris is using this language, then maybe Wikipedia should, too. Because the rest of the New Historians do and so do all the Palestinian historians AFAIK. Levivich (talk) 19:51, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

My guess is that the terminology "settler-colonial" is associated with "de-colonization" which Morris is not ideologically aligned with. DMH223344 (talk) 19:56, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah why is he not ideologically aligned with it though? If they're European colonists on a settlement enterprise, what part of "settler-colonial" is he disagreeing with? :-D I think I know the answer to that, it's not that he disputes settler colonialism, it's that he's pro-settler-colonialism so I guess it's the "de-" part he disagrees with. Anyway, it's all over the introduction to 1948, I don't see a problem with using the same language in wikivoice. Levivich (talk) 20:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

References

Zionist settlers

@IOHANNVSVERVS: I don't see any effort on your side to reach consensus or respond to my arguments in the edit summary. Jewish immigration to Palestine has existed throughout history. The IP conflict has its roots in Zionist immigration and settlement specifically, as described in RS. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:30, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I thought my version - "The conflict has its origins in the arrival of Jewish immigrants and settlers to Palestine in the late 19th and 20th centuries and the advent of the Zionist movement." - was a good compromise and that RSs used both "immigrants" and "settlers". I don't know this aspect of the conflict very well nor do I feel strongly about it either way. I'd be willing to selfrevert if you'd like. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:44, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View

Under Public Attitude towards peace, the following is stated - As of 2024, polling data has produced mixed results regarding the level of support among Palestinians and Israelis for the two-state solution. A minority of Jewish Israelis (32 percent) support a two-state solution with the Palestinians, with many favoring keeping the status quo. Approximately 60 percent of Palestinians (77% in the Gaza Strip and 46% in the West Bank), support armed attacks against Israelis within Israel as a means of ending the occupation, while 70% believe that a two-state solution is no longer possible due to Israeli settlements. More than two-thirds of Israeli Jews say that if the West Bank were annexed by Israel, Palestinians resident there should not be permitted to vote.

- This is a biased way of sharing statistics. From the Israeli side, numbers are stated in terms of support for a peaceful solution while from the Palestinian side, the numbers are stated for an aggressive solution. 70% palestinians believe that a two-state solution is no longer possible but same is true for israel too. 32% support two-state solution meaning 68% do not support a two-state solution. Recommend fixing/updating. A possible rewrite

" As of 2024, polling data has produced mixed results regarding the level of support among Palestinians and Israelis for the two-state solution. A minority of Jewish Israelis (32 percent) support a two-state solution with the Palestinians, with many favoring keeping the status quo. Approximately 40 percent of Palestinians (33% in the Gaza Strip and 54% in the West Bank), do not support armed attacks against Israelis within Israel as a means of ending the occupation, while 30% believe in a two-state solution." Universalwriter (talk) 21:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I changed it to "Most Jewish Israelis (58 percent) oppose a two-state solution...". I think for both groups, it's better to talk about the majority opinion than to frame it in terms of the minority opinion. Levivich (talk) 21:18, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

...aaaactually after reviewing the sources, I deleted the whole section. It was not accurately summarizing the sources. I will post a longer explanation in a separate thread shortly. Thanks again for pointing this out. Levivich (talk) 21:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick reply. I realized that too just now. Also, it should have been 68% instead of 58% but thats moot now :D Universalwriter (talk) 22:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Removed polling section

After looking at the sources in responding to the #Neutral Point of View edit request above, I removed the entire "‎Public attitudes towards peace" section. I felt the problems were too much and couldn't be quickly fixed, so it's better to remove it altogether than leave it, even tagged. The problems were:

• The section starts "As of 2024" but none of the sources were from 2024; they were from 2012, 2021, and 2022.
• The one thing the sources were consistent about was that the polls changed widely from year to year and poll to poll.
• It's misleading to compare opinions from 2012 with opinions from 2022 without identifying them as such, and even moreso if they're identified "as of 2024".
• These sources are three different polls by three different groups asking three different sets of questions, but neither the groups nor the questions were identified
• Even if the groups and years were identified, it's kind of cherry-picking to just take one poll from one year, a second poll from ten years later, and put them in the article together
• The poll questions weren't accurately summarized. For example, this 2022 poll used to source support/oppose of a two-state solution, describes it as "the next government should try to advance a ‘two-state’ solution to resolve the Palestinian conflict." That's not quite the same thing as supporting/opposing a two-state solution in the abstract. For example, one might support a two-state solution in general but oppose the government trying to advance it at this time. As another example, one might support a two-state solution but not believe that it will resolve the Palestinian conflict.
• As another example, this 2021 poll finds that a minority of Israelis (40%) support a two-state solution, but that option also received a plurality of support, so it's the most popular option in that poll. That kind of nuance was missing from the article.

While I think a section about polling or public opinion is worth including in the article, it would have to be written more carefully, with a better selection of sources, e.g. just sources from 2024 or 2023, or (better) not be sources to the polls themselves (which are primary sources for poll results) but to some secondary sources that assess public opinion/polling in general. It can be done, but this section just wasn't it, and I think was giving wrong information as a result (that most Israelis oppose a two-state solution, that most Palestinians support war). Levivich (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Love the nuanced analysis and agree that a public opinion section should exist for this article. But none is better than a wrongly stated one. Universalwriter (talk) 23:03, 16 February 2024 (UTC)