Talk:Israeli–Palestinian conflict/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

peace organisations

Then put (Left wing) after the name of each organisation. It is silly to put political stance in the heading. 'Left wing' organisations implies that there are 'right wing' ones. If that is the case, then surely it shouldn't be a problem listing them in the section. If there are no right wing peace organisations, that is, all peace organisations are left wing, then why do we need to preface the heading with left wing? The heading is clearly NPOV. Suicup 06:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

i do have some small problem with this, considering that anyone can call his activity peace, just as any militant can call his group "*** al-islam" ... i think we should discuss this a tad and perhaps come up with a better name for groups that are more anti-israel than they are pro-peace (i.e. renounce violence if israel does it but refuse to renounce it if it's against israel). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaakobou (talk • contribs)

No, "Left wing" implies nothing except that the organizations under the heading are left wing. Obviously, if there are right wing peace organizations (and there might be, I just don't know any off the top of my head), then they would belong in the "See also" section under "Right wing peace organizations," but until such an organization is found, there is no reason to change any headings or add any headings that imply. --GHcool 17:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. If there are right wing peace organisations, they belong under 'peace organisations', not a separate heading. Why clutter the See also section with a different heading for every political stance? It is much cleaner and more neutral to just have 'Peace Organisations', and then putting any position they might have after the name. Suicup 02:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion, Suicup. I'm glad to see someone who is as concerned with NPOV and cleanliness in the article as I am. I've taken the liberty to put "Left wing" in the heading as opposed to next to every peace organization so as to make the section more clean and I also to show that these organizations have a liberal point of view so that readers don't make the mistake that these organizations are neutral sources of information. I'm sure you would agree that not calling these organizations left wing would violate NPOV and that to label each one left wing with in-text parenthesis is much more messy than naming the article "Left wing peace organizations in Israel." Thanks for your help in this article. --GHcool 08:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

GHcool, you don't seem to be internalising any of my points. Having 'Peace Organisations' encourages the addition of other organisations which may not necessarily be left-wing, without having to create a whole new heading. If all peace organisations in Israel are left wing, then it doesn't make sense to put that in the heading, as you would be stating the obvious. Note, I don't believe this is the case, and i hope a more rounded list will appear given time. Are you proposing we split the documentary 'see also' section into political stances too? Taken to its logical conclusion, your method would make this section ridiculous. I appreciate your comments, however given my 'help' in this article has merely left it unchanged due to your reverts, they seem somewhat hollow. Suicup 09:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Your first argument is in favor of either violating NPOV or making the section a little messy. Your second argument relies on a slippery slope fallacy. Assuming that the section isn't changed any more, I plan on forfeiting this this debate. Even though your arguments are extremely weak, right now the section doesn't violate any Wikipedia guidelines, which is the most important thing. Its just unnecessarily messy, but not important enough to quibble over. --GHcool 17:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

AFD

Please give your opinion and vote on this AFD: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_attacks_committed_during_the_Second_Intifada#.5B.5BList_of_attacks_committed_during_the_Second_Intifada.5D.5D --Burgas00 21:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Arab side of 19th century

to be frank, the reasoning that this information "might_ have a place later on in the article but certainly not in the intro."^[1] would make the article imply that only "zionists" have national aspirations in places that "don't belong to them" rather than give the full image of each side's activity. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 05:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

My position is simple: the info is not relevant enough to warrant inclusion in the introductory paragraph. The original paragraph is good in my opinion, and your edit does not improve it. As a side note, the grammar was sloppy anyway (No offense intended, it read like it was written by a non-native English speaker). Suicup 19:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

i'm confused at your statement, please further clarify how exactly the arab aspirations in the middle east "is not relevant enough to warrant inclusion in the introductory" to the israeli-arab conflict? pardon the figurative speech, but perhaps we should erase arabs completely from the article since they obviously have no claims in the middle east? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

While Suicup and I have disagreed in the past, I must say I see his point this time. I have not read Herzog nor Ismael, but judging by the statement you're trying to add, it looks as though this movement toward independence has nothing to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and has more to do with some sort of short-lived nationalist movement (perhaps originating in Syria). Whatever it was, it certainly wasn't a serious threat to Zionist aspirations. --GHcool 00:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

i think you're jumping to conclusions on that assertion. if you've read any biography about Mohammad Amin al-Husayni and the pan-arab movement you'll notice these arab aspirations are at the core of the conflict, they simply would not agree to any type of compromise with the jews on what they considered (and still are considering) arab land... do you honestly think the term "occupation" means only west bank and jerusalem? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I never read a book-length biography of the Mufti (is there such a book in English?), but I've read about the Mufti in various history books and articles. According to the Wikipedia article on the Mufti, he was only a baby during the 19th century. The Arab national movement furthered by the Mufti came at least 20 years after the First Aliyah. Pan-Arabism was virtually irrelevant in Zionist-Arab relations in the 19th century. --GHcool 20:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

i believe you're mistaken, the time of the Damascus Protocol was at around 1900 and the mufti went to Al-Azhar University at around 1910 and started his pan-arab/anti-zionist activity (p.s. age 15+ is considered an adult by arabs in those days) inspired by the university's themes. there was really no conflict in 1880 because both sides were still only in the planning stages of their aspirations. the conflict really got going at 1920 and placing blame on the jewish national aspirations (first aliyah) is a classic oversight of the will of the arab people. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 03:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

All you say seems to be correct as far as I can tell, but I fail to see how any of that information relates to the genesis of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict circa 1890. I think we can agree that the Mufti's relevance to the conflict did not occur until after 1910. I am not familiar with the details of the Damascus Protocol, but judging by the wikipedia article on it, it doesn't seem to concern Zionism or Zionists. Am I missing something? --GHcool 07:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

what you might be missing is the core of the conflict derives from both jewish and arab aspirations to territory which was not under their ownership; the classical error, which the current version of the article supports, presumes that the conflict started because of the jewish aliya/aspirations... but that is a false presentation which ignores the arab part in the conflict - which was around the same time (late 19th century). the notes i inserted are simply the most known events to explain the way the arabs applied their initial aspirations to the entire middle east (including israel) and it is perfectly balanced in a paragraph that includes the zionist aspirations... obviously whentwo sides declare their desire for a certainpatch of land, there is a beggining of a conflict. i hope that explains the issue. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but none of this changes the fact that the current version of the intro is fine, and your additions do not improve it, in a 'bias reduction' sense, or a 'relevance' sense. Suicup 19:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

please explain why you consider this to be irrelevant. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Suicup, I think treating Jaakobou as an intellectual equal would probably be a better tactic in helping him to see your point.

Jaakobou, I think I understand what you are trying to say, but I fear you are confusing the period of 1910s with the 1890s. The Jewish national movement (Zionism) pre-dates the Arab national movements (pan-Arabism and Palestinian nationalism) by several decades. I understand and agree with your point that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is about the clash between the Jewish and Arab national movements, but there simply isn't a way around the fact that Zionism came before pan-Arabism. To assign a "beginning" of the conflict is arbitrary, of course, because one could always argue that it began one step ahead or one step forward in the continuum. Most of the books and articles I've read begin the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at the First Aliyah because this was the first instance of a strong Zionist and strong Arab population having to share the same land and also because at the time, the Zionists and the Arabs were pretty much evenly matched strategically (i.e. they didn't have the means nor desire to expell one another). --GHcool 19:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

consider this, have any of those books you've read even mentioned the damascus protocol? perhaps they were concentrating on history from a european centric observation angle rather than explore both sides. i know there aren't many arab scholars who'd dare give out information on this topic, but i thought we were addressing the roots of the conflict, not who came first (which is seriously debatable - see the Al-Azhar alumni link). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm still having trouble understanding how the Al Azhar alumni relevant to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a whole are relevant to the conflict's history in the 1890s. Surely you're not suggesting that the Mufti and Izz ad-Din al-Qassamwere politically active in the 1890s. I admit I haven't heard about the Damascus Protocol until now. I pride myself on my familiarity with the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict, but I would not call myself an expert on Middle Eastern history. --GHcool 23:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

basically, when you look at the conflict and try to pinpoint where it started, you cannot just say... "ah, the jews started coming in 1880... that's why!", it's ridiculous to only look at one side's national aspirations and totally ignore the ones of the other side in the conflict... if the arabs had no national aspirations in the area, there would be no conflict. for example, if the arab who conqured jerusalem at about the 6-7th century, would not have knelt and prayed there.. there wouldn't be no conflict... if the Albanian Muhammad Ali Pasha would not have lost his control over the land back to the ottomans, there wouldn't be no conflict... it's all a matter of how far we want to go. basically, considering we're starting to recant the history of the conflict from the point of national aspirations in Israel/Palestine/Damascus Wilayah (depending on who's narrative you listen to) and not from the point where violent clashes started, then we should include notes about the arab national aspirations which include this area regardless of the time stamp because the time stamp of such national aspirations is an elusive term - for example, why not choose Hertzel's book "the jewish state" instead of the first aliya. we have an introduction to the conflict and it would be silly to remove one side from the discussion just because most books know more about the jews and treat arabs like their opinion doesn't even count, no wonder there's an inferiority complex. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[OUTDENT] Jaakobou, I understand your point and sympathize with it, but I cannot honestly see a way for information about Palestinian/Arab national movements to be stated as the counterpoint to the First Aliyah without there being an anachronistic error. I just cracked open my copy of The Continuum Political Encyclopedia of the Middle East and found something that might satisfy the problem of assigning "blame" to the group that "started it." In the second paragraph of the "Arab-Israeli Conflict" listing, it is written:

"Violent Arab resistance accompanied Zionist settlement in Palestine from its inception in the 1880s. Peasants, tenants, or Beduin shepherds who feared the settlements might affect their tenancy or grazing habits, as well as bands of marauders, attacked the settlers, who were considered weak until they posted armed guards, the nucleus of the later organized self-defense (ha-shomer). Such clashes were sporadic and mostly non-political until after World War I. However, even before the War ..." (Sela, 58).

The paragraph goes on to describe the evolution of Arab nationalist ideology that occurred at an unspecified time "before the War," but could not have been before 1900. So, if you wish to phrase it in such a way that on one hand we have Zionists moving to Turkish Palestine and on the other hand, we have xenophobic, violent Arab gangs, I suppose that would be acceptable. --GHcool 08:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

perhaps i've missed an important part to explain my point. at 1900, there were about 250,000 arabs in the land and about 5000 jews. at 1915 the numbers were 300,000 and 10,000. at 1945 the numbers were 750,000 and 550,000 - both sides moved vast amounts of people to the region to try and take it over - this is obviously a reaction to the zionist aliyah (mostly to mooch on the new economy)... but this arab immigration is part of their bigger national aspiration... the way it's currently phrased, would have us believe that the couple of violent clashes before 1900 (basically arab raiders and xenophobia) was a reaction of locals to the jews rather than understand that had the arabs left the area as is without building national aspirations to it, there wouldn't be a conflict... meanning that if arabs did not claim the region they did not own.. and react on it, there would be no problem. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Um but that is exactly what they were in that time period! Local reactions. Your last point is exactly why your addition should not be in the article, it presents an unacceptably biased view point. Suicup 18:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

And what I've been saying is that those little seeds of nationalism that would later yield the Husaynis and the PLO had not yet germinated by 1900. Keep in mind that the Arabs of Palestine in the 19th century were not the organized people that they are today or even in the 1920s. They were mostly peasant farmers with little to no education that kept to their nomadic bands. They were so un-nationalistic that if you were to ask an Arab in Akko in the 19th century if he felt a kinship to an Arab in Haifa, he would probably say no. This was one of the major edges the Jews had going for them: a Jew from Czechoslovakia and a Jews from Romania were "brothers" in the Zionist vision. These rheorical arguments can go on forever. The claim that there was a pre-1900 organized, nationalistic Arab movement in Palestine that seriously rivaled Zionism for control of the land is an exceptional claim and exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Furthermore, please be sure that the source says explicitly what you are implying; meaning that you cannot add information about proto-Arab nationalists in Syria fighting for independence from the Ottoman Empire and imply that it has relevent to the history of opposition to Zionism. --GHcool 16:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

(1) i understand your point. personally, i think that if we are describing the source of the conflict, and not the start of the violence, then the ambitions of each side should be stated regardless of the date (and i most certainly believe the arab aspirations' date is much debatable).

(2) considering i understand your point, i won't press this issue again before i find "exceptional sources".

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 04:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I respect your moderate and positive attitude. --GHcool 05:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

numbers dispute

Jaakobou is presenting the standard Zionist myth of the land without a people. In fact the Arab population of Palestine was c. 500,000 in 1890 and c. 1,324,000 in 1947 all due to natural population growth coupled with a decline in mortality. There is but one scholarly account of illegal Arab immigration into Palestine, that by the Israeli demographer Roberto Bachi, who concluded that it averaged 900 per year between 1931 and 1945. The economy of the Yishuv was designed to be independent, i.e., not to benefit the Arab population, and in fact, because of the Zionist colonies' dependence on foreign subsidies they damaged the local economies of the areas in which they were situated. It's well constructed propaganda, but propaganda nonetheless. --Ian Pitchford 18:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

While I do not contest the research Ian Pitchford cites, I am a little irritated by his reference to it here since that is not what we are even talking about. Please don't change the subject and please don't change the tone of the discussion from a small disagreement to heated mud-slinging. --GHcool 18:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you read Jaakobou's last contribution. Silly myths should be challenged. --Ian Pitchford 19:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Ian Pitchford, what book should you be citing? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 04:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Added a section on House demolition

I've twice added a see-also link to the "House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" page to see it twice removed without comment here. Clearly it is a relevant article, since "House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" is a subset to this article on the "Israeli-Palestinian conflict". I assume it was removed because this topic (House demolition) was not explicitely discussed on the IP conflict page, so I added a section with citations from Reliable Sources to discuss it. Thank you, Jgui 23:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jgui, the reason I moved it was because it wasn't appropriate there. The {{seealso}} templates are designed as a link to the corresponding section, given the small amount of information in the article. Your link was not relevant to that section (which was an overview). However, now that an explicit section on Housing Demolition has been created, it is appropriate to use that template underneath the section heading. Regards. Suicup 02:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, it took a bit of head-scratching but I figured that out. I fixed a redlink citation, and I left Gcool's changes except reworded the sentence stating the reason for demolitions, since this is heavily disputed - see the reference I cited for a statement of both sides (Israel and Amnesty). Cheers, Jgui 02:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Changes to add mention of Arab Peace Initiative and improve NPOV

I added a section on the Arab Peace Initiative, with cited text and seealso's to the appropriate WP pages. Unfortunately an editor deleted all of the text I added without mentioning why here. Please do not delete text without noting why you are doing it here.

I have put the changes back one at a time so it will be clearer what I changed and why. The first change I made was to add the Arab Peace initiative. This initiative is still under discussion, and is in the opinions of many, both Arabs and Israelis, the best chance of achieving real peace, which is borne out by the citation given. Please read the citation and please do not delete this again.

I added back the description of the Israeli pullout from Gaza, unmodified.

I also made changes to improve NPOV. This whole page has POV sections, but two of them in this History section really stood out - presenting the history purely from the Israeli point of view. This consisted of two changes. First I removed the following paragraph:

After repeated Qassam rocket attacks against Israeli civilian populations and the kidnapping of the 19-year-old Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, Israel launched Operation Summer Rains which effectively reinstituted Israeli dominance over the Gaza Strip. Although some Israelis interpret the 2006 Israel-Gaza conflict as proof that the Palestinians are not able or willing to govern themselves without resorting to terrorism and kidnappings and therefore the disengagement was a serious miscalculation, key members of the Knesset including Prime Minister Olmert said "that Israel has no intention of recapturing the Gaza Strip and that IDF forces will eventually retreat."

It should be very clear to anyone who tries to write NPOV WP text why this does not meet the NPOV test. It describes this conflict as starting with "repeated rocket attacks against Israeli populations" - but why did we start there? Why not start with the repeated attacks by Israel against Hamas when Hamas was in the midst of a cease-fire? For that matter why not start with the 1967 war??? And why does this paragraph then present the Israeli thinking from an Israeli newspaper without consideration of the Palestinian thinking? Furthermore, one should ask whether this paragraph serves any purpose - it does not, and the main statement that this paragraph makes - that "Palestinians are not able or willing to govern ... without resorting to terrorism" is pure Original Research and NOT from any source. Clearly this paragraph is a mess and adds nothing and deserves to be deleted.

My final change was to remove a sentence with a CN tag on it, that was similarly POV and Original Research, and added nothing except a gratuitous and uncited slam by the WP writer against the PNA:

Various foreign governments and organizations continued to debate as to whether the PNA had become a credible negotiating authority, and whether economic and diplomatic sanctions should be lifted.

Any comments? Thanks, Jgui 04:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Jgui, I and many others agree with you but I have a comment about the form. The WP:NPOV and WP:NOR policies at Wikipedia imply that you should quote reliable sources (WP:RS) with these opinions. They also imply that, for the sake of balance, you should quote competing views, regardless of how absurd they sound. I wish I could edit it myself but I spend all my free time on Israel & the UN these days. For complaints about these idiotic policies, call Jimbo, not me. Emmanuelm 12:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Emmanuelm, I think you are saying it is important to keep the citation, so I added back the full citation that I had removed above. I kept out all the OR which I detailed above, and added the citation back in an NPOV context, describing the fighting but not trying to state who is responsible for the fighting. Please compare the POV sentences above to the following which I added:

... and sporadic fighting between Israel and Hamas in Gaza has continued. In spite of the continuing fighting, Ynetnews reported that "Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Wednesday that Israel has no intention of recapturing the Gaza Strip and that IDF forces will eventually retreat."

Thank you, Jgui 14:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

GHCOOL, you have AGAIN reverted back to your version of this page (twice!), undoing all the changes that I discuss in detail above. Please follow WP protocol and do not delete my changes again without discussing it here. Thank you, Jgui 01:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

GHCOOL, since you are determined to go into detail regarding Gaza since the Israeli withdrawal, I have tried to take your extremely POV version and flesh it out with accurate and well-cited details that present it in a NPOV fashion. I started immediately after the Israeli withdrawal, instead of jumping right to the kidnapping of Corporal Shalit as you did. And I have updated it with the latest news coming out of Israel of another proposed ceasefire. Thank you, Jgui 07:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Ghcool, I would like to remind you that you are not supposed to simply delete cited text you do not like from WP as you have just done; you are supposed to improve the text, and you are supposed to discuss any major changes here in Talk. I hope you will follow these WP guidelines in the future.

Ghcool, you removed a large portion of text that I added, claiming in your edit history that "you cannot place events in Feb. 2005 AFTER events in Aug. 2005 in the chronology." Your claim is not accurate, since we are not building a rigid time-line in this section, we are discussing a history of events. Nevertheless I see the general benefit of chronological order, so I have rewritten to do so. Please do not delete my cited paragraph again without discussing it here.

In making my changes I deleted one uncited sentence: "Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has stated that further unilateral withdrawals from some West Bank settlements may be undertaken if the peace process continues to be stalled." I deleted this sentence since it was made more than a year ago and does not describe Olmert's current thinking. I also do not think the sentence is valuable, but if someone thinks it is important, then they should re-add it, changing it to note the context in which it was made and the fact that it is no longer being considered as an option. Thank you, Jgui 18:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Huhhh??? An Israeli Prime Minister has said "If peace talks slow down, we may just give up more territory, without waiting for any formal deal." And in your mind, if that hasn't come up recently, he must not be thinking it anymore. Not sure I agree with you. That seems like a fairly substantial statement of a leader's entire underlying philosophy. I feel that sentence should be retained. --Steve, Sm8900 19:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that he made this statement while running for office, when there was popular support for the disengagement of Gaza. AFAIK, he has not repeated that statement or made any indication that he would attempt to follow through on it - on the contrary it would seem to be political suicide for him to attempt it given his unpopularity now. But I did not research it well, and if you think it is important, then please add it back in context. Thanks, Jgui 20:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, well also, the fact that he said it is useful as showing his mentality at a particular time, even if his philosophy changed. After all, part of our goal is to tell history accurately too, and as long as he is still prime minister, that is relevant to current situations too. So I appreciate your reply. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 20:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Introduction changes

Hi people. A user (82.166.9.18) recently changed the intro to say:

"Many Palestinians accept the West Bank and Gaza Strip as at least a part of the territory of their future state.[6] Many Israelis are ready to accept a solution in which Gaza and West Bank only will be the only parts under Israel's control to be given to the Palestinians.[6]"

Whereas it used to say:

"Most Palestinians accept the West Bank and Gaza Strip as at least a part of the territory of their future state. Most Israelis also accept this solution."

Now, I haven't read the book that this part is referencing, but apart from the poor English ("...West Bank only will be the only parts...") I'm really not sure what this addition means (what is 'many' anyway?). Is it saying that most Israeli's *just* want to give back Gaza and the West Bank? Can someone else (maybe the person responsible fot assigning the ref originally?) take a look and tell me what they think about it? My inclination was to change it back, but I figured I'd better ask first...

BTW, I was the chappy who changed the intro recently under the ip 80.42.84.75. Apologies if I'm stepping on anyone's shoes but I'm new to this! Richardbeavis 20:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I own the book referenced and added the reference to the lead to begin with. I just changed it back to the original version. Your instincts were correct, Richardbeavis. --GHcool 22:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

   Thanks for taking a look, GH.  (Phew!) Richardbeavis 12:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Perspectives

Just a comment but I wonder if the article doesn't say enough about the perspectives of the two sides in the context of trying to explain the justifications of the conflict and the reasons it has affected the entire Middle East as opposed to being a more localized issue. Granted this is difficult to discuss in an objective way but it seems worth trying to do. Among other things the fact that, for right or wrong, many in the Middle East view the Jewish population as foreigners who have invaded the region and view Israel as a colonial empire of Europe seems worth bringing out more explicitly. I think most people in Western Europe and the Americas (presumably some of the major audience of this English-language page) don't look at it this way and so bringing out this point in more detail clarifies the intensity of the emotions to some degree. This same attitude could be compared to the Protestant-Catholic conflict in Ireland and many other similar conflicts although, obviously, this conflict has escalated to much larger proportions and the details are unique.

Mind you, I am not suggesting casting any sort of judgment, only clarifying mindsets.

--Mcorazao 20:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

What you are asking for is already provided here. --GHcool 21:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

No, this doesn't really talk about what I've mentioned. All that is there is a vague list of general topics which speak little to somebody who is not already very knowledgeable about the subject. Granted if they follow the links and read deeply enough they could start to pick this up but, ideally, this article should be able to stand on its own (i.e. the reader should be able to get an overview of the topic simply from reading this article alone).

--Mcorazao 04:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Also that link is on a separate page. --Mcorazao 02:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.181.251.9 (talk)