Talk:Six-Day War/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Caution To Editors Regarding Edit Warring

As noted at the top of this talk page, editors on this article are subject to general sanctions for edit warring here. In essence a prior arbitration case found constant edit wars on articles concerning Israel and Palestine. Namely, outside influences and conflict carry their way onto Wikipedia where the conflict continues. Wikipedia is not a battleground.

It appears the latest dispute here on a generally stable article started about a week ago. I would encourage all editors to work together in good faith to work out the dispute. Do not just make changes without discussing them with others here. Also, edit comments don't qualify as discussion, the discussion should be here where all can participate. One editor here has asked for informal mediation on this matter I would direct you to that mediation page if you are interested in participating.

That said all editors here should consider this a warning: if you continue to edit war here (i.e. revert without discussion, make substantive changes without discussion), fail to assume good faith and fail to work out your differences you are subject to sanctions which includes a block, a ban from editing the article at all or a topic ban if it extends to other articles. It also can lead to protection of the article. Thanks. --Wgfinley (talk) 14:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

There are a dozen or so editors who oppose the POV push by JRHammond. Several mainstream, neutral RSs state that the attack was preemptive and a classic example of premption. Hammonds claim of consensus is untrue and in addition, mainsteam sources contradict his marginal view.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, rash actions are being taken by both sides in this debate. Slowly, folks! This article... is in desperate need of a major overhaul (though it contains tons of stuff that can be saved and used). It is also an edit war magnet. Slowly, people, please. Step by step, or else all will come to naught. • Ling.Nut 19:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. But this is not an intellectual dispute. This is an attempt to revise history. The sources cited for preemption are numerous (much more so than the other side), mainstream and reliable. And what's this bullshit about "Israel falsely stated." That's not POV pushing? and as Marokwitz correctly points out, that a distortion of the source. Looks like Hammond views this debate as zero sum where winner takes all.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Jiujitsuguy is 100% right. First of everybody has to stop violating WP:NPOV, and then we could talk how to improve the article. Enough of re-writing the history already. Ling.Nut is working on the lead. Let them finish, and then we will see what to do next.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

What's false, Jiujitsuguy, is to say I ever said there was a consensus. In fact, what I've said is that since there's no consensus that the attack was either preemptive or not preemptive, the obvious solution, as per Wikipedia policy, is to have it read neutrally, noting both views, but endorsing neither. It's you pushing for an un-neutral POV in this case, my friend.

A solution to this edit warring has been discussed at LENGTH here, and an agreement made among editors that the solution is to retain the wording in question until objections and alternative suggested wordings have been heard and agreed upon, and only then the changes made. This is a perfectly reasonable solution which you, indeed, have rejected. Yet you offer no alternative solution, indeed, than reverting the changes with NO discussion, and in total disregard to the agreed-upon solution of a majority of editors.

I've gone out of my way to try to end this edit warring through discussion and consensus. Yet you make NO effort to participate through this kind of contribution, preferring instead to revert with NO discussion, and in total disregard to the agreed upon solution.

As for the "falsely claimed" wording, this is a fact. It's not a judgment or a view or an opinion. It's a fact. It's a fact that Israel claimed Egypt had attacked first. It's a fact that that was false. This is completely uncontroversial. If you really want to dispute that, good luck trying to put together an argument. You'll need it. JRHammond (talk) 02:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

First of all I remind you that Wikipedia cares about verifiability, not truth. Secondly, this is NOT a fact, it's your original interpretation, and a grossly distorted one. I read the source, and it only says "moved against", not "attacked". This can be interpreted as referring to the troops mobilization. And I found no mention of the word "falsely" in the source. The text you proposed was a blatant violation of WP:V and WP:SYNTH. Marokwitz (talk) 06:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I need no reminding, Marokwitz, that Wikipedia cares about verifiability. I never suggested otherwise.

It is an UNCONTROVERSIAL fact that Israel initially claimed that Egypt had "moved against" Israel (I'm not interested in debating semantics, and already revised my original wording to contain the exact quote rather than the paraphrase you objected to). Any editor here can verify that from the source I provided (also, "Each Side Accuses Other of Making First Assault", New York Times, June 5, 1967).

It is also an UNCONTROVERSIAL fact that no such aggression by Egypt occurred. If you disagree, you are welcome to present evidence from the documentary record that Israel was telling the truth. You'll find that you are not able to. And you'll find that nobody makes that claim. One would surely think that if this had actually been true it might have found its way into, say, Oren's book, no? JRHammond (talk) 08:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

In all my studies of the Six Day War I've never read anything to contradict the widely-reported statement that Israel initially claimed Egypt attacked first and subsequently changed its account to one in which it claimed the attack was preemptive. If anyone is questioning this, they will have to provide clear and solid sources. The following sources in support of the mainstream view (ie that Israel changed its story from "Egypt attacked first" to "we attacked first but it was preemptive") are currently available on the article page and have been for some time:

‘In the Security Council on June 5 Egypt charged Israel with aggression, as did the USSR. But Israel claimed that Egypt had struck first. It told the council that “in the early hours of this morning Egyptian armoured columns moved in an offensive thrust against Israel’s borders. At the same time Egyptian planes took off from airfields in Sinai and struck out towards Israel. Egyptian artillery in the Gaza strip shelled the Israel villages of Kissufim, Nahal-Oz and Ein Hashelosha..." In fact, Egypt had not attacked by land or air and none of its aircraft had approached Israel.’ The Case for Palestine: An International Law Perspective; John B Quigley, p. 163

The US Office of Current Intelligence "...soon concluded that the Israelis - contrary to their claims - had fired first." Robarge, 2007.

If those who objected to these accounts are unable to find solid sources refuting them, I would be grateful if they would put the information they removed back into the article. Phersu (talk) 08:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the further input, Phersu. I've already restored the information removed without prior discussion or sourcing that would demonstrate that this is in even the least bit controversial. JRHammond (talk) 09:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• The question is not what's true or false; the question is the WP:WEIGHT applied to any given fact or set of facts. Foregrounding the Israeli flip-flop by placing it in the lead might work to create a patina of culpability that may or may not be appropriate in an NPOV article. One particularly subtle way of framing POV in an article is through the organization of the text... particularly troubling if it were but one in a string of facts that seems to lay culpability on one side only... Perhaps it's appropriate to place that fact in the lead; perhaps not (though certainly it should be in the article).... we will see whether or not it goes in the lead, but I must stress that its presence is certainly negotiable. • Ling.Nut 10:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it's an important fact that should be included in the lede. Like the Suez Crisis, Samu, the troop buildup, the closing of the straits, the expulsion of UNEF, etc., I think to omit it from the lede would be an oversight. However, I'm open to moving out of lede to body, and would suggest a new section dealing with the preemption vs. aggression issues. JRHammond (talk) 15:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Israel did not claim that there was a general attack by Egypt. See Prime Minister Eshkol's statement to the Knesset on June 5, in which he said:

"In Sinai, opposite our frontier, there were deployed until this morning five divisions of infantry and two armored divisions, with 900 tanks along the frontier 200 of them opposite Eilat, with the obvious intention of cutting off the southern Negev; Iraqi troops and Egyptian commando units reached Jordan; the Jordanian army was placed under Egyptian command. During the past ten days, Egyptian air sorties have been carried out in Israeli skies."

http://www.theisraelproject.org/site/c.hsJPK0PIJpH/b.2715653/k.C82A/Statement_to_the_Knesset_by_Prime_Minister_Eshkol_5_June_1967.htm

79.177.132.249 (talk) 14:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It's an uncontroversial fact that Israel claimed Egypt attacked first. Israel gave a statement of this claim at the United Nations the day of the attack. Sources have already been given. Are you trying to "unprove" that or something? This quote is irrelevant. JRHammond (talk) 15:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The thing is that Egypt did attack first, when it closed the strait for Israeli shipping. It was an act of war, and Israel warned she will consider it as an act of war, and she did.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

As you perfectly well know, that is not the Israeli claim in question -- the Israeli claim in question is its claim that on the morning of June 5, Israel responded to an Egyptian attack. It's absolutely uncontroversial, a known and demonstrable fact, that Israel made this claim. It is furthermore absolutely uncontroversial that this claim is false. Kindly refrain from engaging in strawman arguments. JRHammond (talk) 03:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Folks, probably better to stay focused on the source's accounts or else someone will wander in here and start talking closing borders elsewhere, acts of war, so on and so forth and it will end in tears. I'm just saying. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow, warring over my warning on warring. Cool down please I see sniping on both sides of this but JRH there is no doubt you need to step things back a notch with the rhetoric. I see some efforts being made to try to work out the differences, they will not be worked out if you resolve to not negotiate and dig in your heels. Respectful discussion free of attacks is the best way to do this otherwise yes, there's a rather simple solution to the edit warring but nobody will like that. --Wgfinley (talk) 18:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Kindly quote me where I ever employed any ad hominem arguments, as opposed to addressing the facts and logic of the argument(s) put forth. You'll find, Wgfinley, you're unable to do so. So kindly refrain from suggesting otherwise. It's unhelpful. Cheers. JRHammond (talk) 03:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

1. I never accused you of making ad hominem arguments, I asked you to calm down -- WP:DISENGAGE.
2. You can be right about something and still be wrong -- META:DBAD.
3. You have engaged in a level of rhetoric that has created a hostile atmosphere (WP:CIVIL), you refuse to relent from your positions and you attack the positions of others with walls of text and barbs (WP:DBF). You've had editors ask you to calm down and you've had admins ask you to calm down and yet you've attacked anyone who has asked you to -- WP:NOTTHEM.
4. "Unhelpful" is not a word.
5. This is the first thing you posted immediately after your previous ban expired (WP:NAM) followed by open questioning of your ban even being valid, it appears you need more time to cool down, 7 days should do.
6. If you come back from this block and engage in more vitriol here again I'll have no choice but to take further sanctions and ban you from editing or discussion on this article per WP:GS. --WGFinley (talk) 05:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Additions

I'm not interested in editing warring. I put the POV tag on the article long ago because editors were introducing arguments into the lede about subjects that were not mentioned in the article and deleting attempts to add relevant sourced material to the article.

Editors were trying to justify the total exclusion of opposing views on the basis overly-long cherry-picked lists of references they employed to support the inclusion of their favorite verb. Most of those editors have long-since been topic banned. I've reached agreements here on several occasions that this article needs a subsection, at the very start, containing the various views of "all the interested parties to the conflict" on the so-called preemptive strike. It is hard to summarize something that the article doesn't discuss in the first place.

Here is some well sourced material I want to add to the article: A major oversight is the lack of a section on Operation Rotem.[1] In 1960, the Russians had told Egypt that Israel was about to attack Syria. Egypt deployed their entire army into the Sinai before Israel found out what had happened. There were no Israeli forces in place to prevent them from invading. Ben Gurion used the military censors to keep the information from the public. He let it be known that Israel would not launch a first strike, and decided not to mobilize the reserves. He deployed a skeleton force under the name Operation Rotem and the situation eventually died down. The Egyptian units had all returned to their garrisons within a few months.

Rabin wrote in his memoirs that, in 1967 GHQ intelligence believed that Israel was facing a repetition of Operation Rotem and that the Egyptian Army would eventually withdraw from the Sinai.[2] Rabin (and Ben Gurion) record that the former Prime Minister was furious with the General for mobilizing the reserves and bringing the country to the brink of war. According to Michael Oren, Prime Minister Eshkol had told the General Staff that the IDF was not established to fight wars of choice, and that the mere presence of the Egyptian Army in the Sinai was not grounds for launching a preemptive attack.[3] Prime Minister Begin said the presence of the Egyptian Army was not a casus belli and that the Six Day War had been a war of choice. [4]

According to the Commander of UNEF, the blockade of the Straits of Tiran was staged for the benefit of U Thant's visit to Cairo. Nasser announced that he had inspected two ships and immediately accepted a UN proposal for a moritorium.[5] The Secretary General reported to the Security Council that Nasser had provided assurances that Egypt would not launch a first strike, and that he only wanted to restore the status quo ante conditions that had existed under the 1949 Armistice Agreements.[6] Israel had declared its sovereignty over the DMZs and said the Armistice agreements were null and void. Syria complained to the Security Council that the Arab cultivators living in the DMZs had been dispossessed by Israel and replaced by Jewish settlers.[7] harlan (talk) 19:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Changes to Lede

I was going to suggest changes to current lede, but then noticed Ling.Nut has a proposed sweeping rewrite of it going, so chose to go with that version instead. My comments are lengthy, so I thought it deserved a new section so as not to clutter the section Ling.Nut began on that. My two cents:

• These territorial gains left Israel three and half times larger than its original size, and greatly reduced its geographic vulnerability to attack from neighboring states.

As the idea is to be general in the lede and more specific further into the article, as User:Frederico1234 has suggested, I think the current version is better. Additionally, I don't think it's fitting to mention a major consequence for Israel without stating the consequence of those same land gains for the inhabitants of those occupied territories. This is currently: "The results of the war affect the geopolitics of the region to this day." However, I don't like this either, as it's a sever understatement as is. Suggest:

"The war is considered a watershed event and has had consequences that continue to greatly affect the geopolitics of the region."

• In addition to "the loss of territories, military hardware, human life and economic resources," Arabs and the Islamic world were "sunk with a feeling of shame, humiliation, frustration that followed the defeat."[13]

If this was a journal article, I'd have no problem with this, but I don't think it's appropriate to dirctly quote in this manner. For a Wiki page, I would suggest no reader should ever have to click to see the footnote to know where the quote comes from. Yet here, I'm sure we'd all agree adding a "writes so-and-so" would be silly. So suggest paraphrasing:

"The loss of lives, territory, military hardware, and economic resources was a humiliating defeat."

• The defeat and humiliation of the war, along with "the sacred history of the terrain on which it was fought" and "the failure of the international order to bring about what Arabs considered a just solution to the conflict", are cited by militant groups (including Hamas) and scholars alike as a significant spur to the growth of Islamism in the Arab world.[14]

Following on above comment, suggest this be removed altogether. Such discussion can follow later in article.

• Israel officially stated in 1957 that it would consider any miltary act closing the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping as a justification for war.[15]

This is an abrupt shift back in time, with no segue. Suggest:

"The geopolitical conditions leading to war had been set in place many years beforehand."

Following on that suggestion, I suggest 57 is not an appropriate starting point, because it neglects the British, French, Israeli attack on Egypt just the year prior, which is extremely important, including in regard to Egyptian decisionmaking. This would also do, because the next sentence refers to "the 1956 war", without explanation as to what that was. Suggest:

"In 1956, Britain, France, and Israel conspired to attack Egypt after Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal. During the war tha ensured, Israel invaded and occupied the Sinai Peninsula, but was forced to withdraw the following year under pressure from the U.S. and international community."

Then can follow the sentence about Israel's warning on Tiran

• Though surrounded by nations hostile to its existence, its primary military antagonist in the years following the 1956 war was Syria, whereas Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt pursued a "policy of virtual withdrawal" from the Arab-Israeli conflicts.[16]

Disapprove. Strongly suggest deletion or revision and removal to body. First of all, this neglects the issue of Fatah attacks for which Israel held Jordan responsible, leading up to Samu, etc. And discussion of details of Egypt's mililtary strategy should be in body, not lede.

• Nine days later, Israel attacked the city of Samu in Jordan, a stronghold of the Palestinian group Fatah, which Syria had been using as a military proxy, and which had been carrying out its attacks through Jordanian territory.

Disapprove. Strongly. Following on above comment, any reader unfamiliar would read this and go, "Whaa...???" First of all, what evidence is there the Fatah raids were backed by the Syrian government? I'm very familir with the claim, but know of no evidence for it. It would be fine to say Israel held Syria responsible for the raids or that Israel accused Syria of backing the raids.

• King Hussein of Jordan, who until that time had avoided direct confrontation with Nasser of Egypt, then began a propaganda campaign (in conjunction with Faisal of Saudi Arabia) marked by "[relentless] verbal assault" against Nasser.[17][18]

I disapprove of describing rhetoric as "propaganda campaign". If we use such descriptions, it would have to apply universally -- such as by similiarly describing Israel's rhetoric about the imminent threat of destruction. I certainly agree with this, but would nevertheless suggest this violates WP:NPOV. The point could be made without directly describing it as such. Suggest:

"King Hussein of Jordan publically accused Nasser of failing to come to Jordan's defense, a humiliation which Nasser responded to by increasing his bellicose rhetoric towards Israel."

• On 14 May Nasser sent the first of what was to be a steady stream of Egyptian soldiers into the Sinai Peninsula, approaching Israel's southern border.

Disapprove. Strongly to: "...approaching Israel's southern border". Naturally, any move of troops from west of the canal into the Sinai is movement towards the border with Israel. This goes without saying. It unnecessarily implies aggressive intent.

• Israel then began a period of elevated tension that was to last for three weeks, known as Ha-Hamtana ("the waiting"), making no provocative statements, and purely defensive military adjustments, while hoping for a resolution without war.[19]

Disapprove. STRONGLY. Oren is, to say the least, a questionable source for supporting such a judgment (it's a judgment, not a fact). As Norman Finkelstein has observed:

Even as Oren claims that Israel never "even contemplated" anything beyond neutralizing the Egyptian military threat, he reports that in the weeks leading up to the June War (or before hostilities actually broke out on the Jordanian and Syrian fronts), different IDF commanders expected to "conquer Gaza"; "strike Egypt, and then we'll fight Syria and Jordan as well"; "advanc[e] into Sinai and ... to the Jordan headwaters in the north and the Latrun corridor leading to Jerusalem"...

Oren goes on offering from Oren's own account where his own facts contradict his conclusions ("Abba Eban With Footnoes", Journal of Palestine Studies). Wikipedia should not be giving the Israeli ambassador to the U.S.'s version of the '67 war. It's fine to use facts from his book, but using his judgments and presenting those as facts is absolutely a violation of WP:NPOV.

• Two days later Nasser requested and rapidly obtained the withdrawal of the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) from Egyptian soil, and the following day Egyptian forces replaced UN positions at the strategically vital point of Sharm el-Sheikh, which overlooks the Straits of Tiran.

Disapprove. Overly detailed. State the main point in lede, that Nasser expelled UNEF. Discussion of details can follow in body. Also, it needs to be mentioned that Israel rejected suggestiosn to have UNEF stationed on its side of the border. This is a serious omission.

• On 1 June Israel formed a National Unity Government by widening the cabinet to include members of the opposition parties, and the hawkish Moshe Dayan was made Israeli Defense Minister.

Disapprove. Agree with I believe it was User:Frederico1234 that "hawkish" should be deleted here.

• On 4 June the decision was made to go to war, followed the next day by Operation Focus, a large-scale surprise airstrike by Israel that was the opening of the Six-Day War.

Suggest "next morning" rather than "next day". The attack was launched at around 7am.

• Though few material facts of the war are in dispute, the motivations of the national leaders (particularly Nasser) has been the subject of much speculation.

Disapprove. STRONGLY. First clause questionable. And why are the motivations of Nasser particularly more subject to debate than Israel's?

• Both sides denied wishing to initiate armed conflict, and yet both have been described as carrying out plans to conquer the other.

Disapprove. Weak wording. Suggest: "Both sides denied aggressive intent while accused the other of instigating hostilities"

• In addition, the Six Day War has been described as a preemptive war, a preventative war, and an "inadvertent war".

Disapprove. Both "preemptive" and "preventative" (should be "preventive") are Israeli POV. It's doesn't do to mention two versions of the Israeli POV without also mentioning the other POV, which is that it was "aggressive" war. Why is "inadvertent war" in quotation marks but the other descriptions not?

• The end bit on other names for the war typically is something that goes right at the beginning of the lede in most WP articles, and I suggest moving it there, both for this reason and because "Six Day War" is actually the Israeli name for it -- Arabs don't call it that. Not saying article title needs changing, but if the article itself is going to be called "Six Day War", it would do to add this caveat right up front, as is typical for WP articles. JRHammond (talk) 03:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• I'll try to take the time to examine the details of your objections, but suffice it to say that I probably disagree with most or perhaps even all of the objections that pertain to the general approach taken.. I will (tentatively) grant you all factual disagreements, and try to examine them. But the WP:LEAD should function almost as a stand-alone article. To repeat myself a bit more clearly, even at the risk of being perhaps a bit impolite (although that is not my intention, and I hope it is not perceived that way), the current version is a nearly-incoherent grab- bag of shtuff that leaves the uninitiated, uninformed reader with basically no idea whatsoever what the Six Day War was, why it happened, and what its consequences were. Before a few days or perhaps a week ago, I had little or no idea what the Six Day War was. Rather than being a weakness, I would suggest that it is my greatest strength in this discussion. I believe I bring the reader's perspective to the table, rather than the dedicated editor's. I strongly believe that all of the participants in this discussion are over-familiar with this topic, and have fallen into the trap of skipping over or barely mentioning extremely important general facts because you take them for granted as common knowledge, and instead, obsessing on finer-grained points that are far more controversial. • Ling.Nut 04:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I would respectfully suggest, however, that those with extensive knowledge of the subject should put together the basic draft. Your input, as a more recent study, would be very helpful to point out where any confusion arises to the general reader due to lack of background knowledge and context. I'm not suggesting to start from scratch again, but as a person whose been studying it off and on for many years, I think my suggestions are valuable and my objections to certain things valid. JRHammond (talk) 08:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Not to put too fine a point on it (I hope), but I'm afraid that by asking me to take a secondary role and letting others (by implication, that is, yourself) draft the changes you've backed me into a corner and forced me to be blunt. Just as JujitsuGuy operates from a patently pro-Israel POV, it seems to me that your comments always and everywhere defend and exculpate Arab individuals and nations. I'm afraid that sitting back and letting you outline the lead would quite likely result in a subtle pro-Arab POV, mainly by selection of topics to leave in a take out, but also by degree of emphasis placed on various events etc. Please forgive me for pointing this out. I sincerely apologize if it offends you. I intend to continue working, and am very open to input from everyone (I intend to incorporate some of your comments and suggestions in my workspace; I've just been overwhelmed with real-life responsibilities). I look forward to working together with you to create a truly NPOV article that meets Wikipedia's needs. • Ling.Nut 08:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Ling.Nut, I never suggested I should be the one to outline the lead. I had harlan in mind, actually, when I said that. My exact words were "those with extensive knowledge of the subject should put together the basic draft". I didn't say me. I also said, "I'm not suggesting to start from scratch again, but as a person whose been studying it off and on for many years, I think my suggestions are valuable and my objections to certain things valid." If you think my suggestions are not valuable or my objections invalid, you are welcome to explain your reasons. I'm more than happy to hear them out and work with you to get this thing improved and NPOV compliant. JRHammond (talk) 09:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

• In addition to the general reply above, I have attempted a point-by-point treatment, first of Frederico's remarks, then JRHammond's. Sorry so long-winded.
• Frederico1234:

• drop "hawkish" from Dayan (JRHammond agrees), or rmv Dayan alogther.

• I dropped "hawkish"... Oren 2002 states that none of Israeli preparations for war was so pivotal as the appointment of Dayan, on page 148 (perhaps largely for morale reasons). Other sources repeatedly refer to this. I can drop Dayan, but I think it bears discussion.

• remove or shorten text about Samu.

• I disagree. Samu probably was not directly the cause of the war, but it was probably the cause of the heightened tensions that funneled into the war.

• drop "hoping for a resolution without war"; "purely defensive" is disputable/dubious.

• dropped "hoping for a resolution without war"; changed " purely defensive military adjustments" to "no overtly aggressive military adjustments". I realize that the latter may still be unacceptable, but I am trying to move in a more moderate direction. It is clear to me that Israel wanted to avoid at least the appearance of wanting to go to war (and at least at that time its leaders may in fact have wanted to avoid war altogether ; note inner disagreements etc.).

• "Nasser most probably believed (erroneously) that an Israeli attack on Syria was imminent". Oh, in additon to granting Wikipedia an unwarranted and unacceptable omniscience, this assertion is highly disputable (although it is in fact what Nasser himself repeatedly asserted). Closing the Straits was, in my mind, the same as starting the war. Why did Nasser do it? He may have wanted war, thinking his Egyptian forces (supplemented by others) would prevail. He may have thought war would not come, possibly (but not likely) because he thought the Israelis had no stomach for it, but far more likely because he thought the US would intervene and prevent it. Other explanations may be suggested as well.

I withdrew the suggestion. It was original research from my side. Sorry for that. --Frederico1234 (talk) 07:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• JRHammond:

• "As the idea is to be general in the lede", drop the following:

1. "These territorial gains left Israel..."
2. "The defeat and humiliation of the war, along with"

• Strongly disagree. Please do make a nice cup of something pleasant to drink, find a quiet place to sit, and try a thought experiment: imagine that you are a highly intelligent but utterly uninformed newbie to this topic. You click on the link to Six Day War. What do you want to see? I would suggest that by far the most important fact that you are craving is a clear explanation of the consequences of the war. The consequences are (by another name) the bulk of the relevance to today's uninformed and uninvolved reader.

• "'Israel officially stated in 1957' is an abrupt shift back in time..."

• Mildly disagree. It is very important to clearly establish context, albeit with going all the way back into ancient history. I think the issue of the Straits bears more immediate relevance than the Suez Crisis (note however that because of your objections, I added a wikilink to the Suez Crisis article, to help unpack it a bit)... I will think about this passage, though. Another possibility is that this paragraph may need to be moved en masse to another position.

• Add ""In 1956, Britain, France, and Israel conspired..."

• Strongly disagree, though I am not taking any position on whether your statement is factually correct or incorrect. Rather, I again think that the Straits issue is the touchstone for the lead's historical context.

• Dispute "Fatah, which Syria had been using as a military proxy"

• Granted. I think this issue of "Fatah as Syrian proxy" requires more research, and tentatively feel that saying "Israel held Syria responsible for the raids" is probably acceptable.

• "'policy of virtual withdrawal' is a discussion of details of Egypt's military strategy, and should be in body text"

• Mildly disagree, on two points. First, I was quite taken aback when I read that Nasser essentially wasn't heavily involved in engaging the Israelis — neither verbally nor militarily — before mid-1967, almost wholly because he was preoccupied with Yemen, Saudi Arabia, etc. This point is very counter-intuitive; the thought runs something like, "Don't people who go to war probably have a lot of friction beforehand?" Second, the statement in my lead is not referring to military strategy, though I probably did not make that at all clear. I am more referring to the lack of a "war of words" until very late in the sequence (although the war of words became, from the Israeli perspective, bitter indeed at about that time... the Burrowes & Douglas article, and Cohen as well, are fascinating reads... and many, many sources note Nasser's bombastic pre-war speeches as a crucial pre-war point.. so much so that I think these things may need to be mentioned; will consider).

• Disapprove Strongly of: "...approaching Israel's southern border". Naturally, any move of troops from west of the canal into the Sinai is movement towards the border with Israel. This goes without saying; doesn't imply aggression"

• Disagree again. Once again, I suggest that uninformed readers may have no idea of the geography of the region. The troop movements may not have had aggressive intent, but this question of intent is not mentioned. It will be discussed in body text.

• Disapprove STRONGLY of "Israel then began a period of elevated tension.. the waiting... defensive"

• See my remarks in the context (above) of Frederico's similar statements.

• needs to be mentioned that Israel rejected suggestions to have UNEF stationed on its side of the border

• That can be done.

• Though few material facts of the war are in dispute, the motivations of the national leaders (particularly Nasser) has been the subject of much speculation.

• The only dispute of material facts regards the size of the Egyptian forces in the Sinai; see "Stumbling Decidedly into the Six-Day War" by Roland Popp as a key text. This issue, however, is very clearly meat that must be deferred until body text. As for singling out Nasser, everyone is puzzled as to why the hell he closed the Straits in the face of explicit statements that doing so would be cassus belli. See my response to Frederico above. But... I think... it my be possible to omit singling out Nasser. Yes.

• "Both sides denied wishing to initiate" is weak wording.

• This is an implementation detail, and certainly open to improvement.

• Hey, did I miss anything? If so, it was unintentional. Your input solicited. • Ling.Nut 06:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Will read discussion and get back, but for now explaining my edit just now: I've repeatedly invited editors to state any objections to the wording of the 3rd para, and to avoid edit warring to get majority approval for edits before making them, as per WP:TALK. Editors making changes have not done so, and I've restored to a version that had approval, pending discussion of revisions.

It is an uncontroversial fact that Israel falsely claimed that Egypt had attacked first. Israel officially informed the U.N. that "Egyptian land and air forces have moved against Israel and Israel forces are now engaged in repelling the Egyptian forces." (S/PV.1347/Rev.1, June 5, 1967).

As for the suggestion that a source needs to be provided that states Egypt did not attack first, this is a request to prove a negative. It's unnecessary, because absolutely nobody argues that Egypt did so. Which is understandable, since there's no evidence otherwise. It's completely uncontroversial that Egypt did not do so, that this claim is false. If Merkowitz wants to challenge that, let him present evidence of his affirmative assertion that Egypt attacked first. It's not my burden of proof to prove a negative. This is uncontroversial.

On WP:CLAIM, I'm fine with "Israel subsequently said it had taken preemptive action because it believed an Egyptian attack was imminent", so left that edit without reverting it. JRHammond (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC).

Thanks for taking the time to thoroughly go through my suggestions, Ling.Nut. I think we're close to agreement on most points, so I'll just reiterate a few things where I see we may be in disagreement:

• Samu should remain in the lede. It would be a greivous omission not to mention it, at the very least briefly.

• It's fine to list consequences, but it's not fine to list consequence for Israel (territorial expansion) but not for Palestinians (under illegal military occupation for over 4 decades). So include consequences from both POV.

• It is a greivous omission to start the background to the war at 1957, because this ignores Israel's attack on Egypt the year before, which was EXTREMELY relevant for understanding Egypt's decision making process and otherwise EXTREMELY crucial context for understanding '67. I'm fine with revising my suggested wording if you don't like it, but this information absolutely should be in the lede's brief historical background of the war. JRHammond (talk) 08:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• I have made some changes to my version of the lead, to reflect the comments above by JRHammond & Frederico1234. One sticking point that I haven't touched is the verbiage about Fatah being a Syrian proxy. Don't misunderstand. I'm not putting my foot down and saying that it must stay; I just have had absolutely no time to look into the matter enough to satisfy myself. Please consider that passage in particular to be tentative.[I removed the bit about Fatah being a Syrian proxy. It can be debated later. Right now I just wanna make progress here.] Your input welcomed. • Ling.Nut 05:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all your hard work, Ling.Nut. Apologies for not getting back sooner. I was blocked for 55 hours, ostensibly for "edit warring", for implementing the agreed version of the 3rd para pending further discussion and revision and undoing reverts implemented without discussion or peer approval, despite repeated reasonable requests to resolve the problem through the Talk page. I'm going to leave editing for others, as it's proven futile for me to try to improve the article with my own edits. I'll focus instead on helping Ling.Nut get his new lede implemented. This version is a huge improvement, and I think is coming together quite nicely. I have a few further objections/suggestions:

1) "These territorial gains left Israel three and half times larger than its original size..."

I strongly object to this wording. This suggests Israel's territory expanded, and the assumption seems to be that there was annexation rather than occupation. Yet it's an uncontroversial point of fact under international law that the acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible, and the Israeli occupation and colonization illegal. This is reflected in UN res 242 and numerous subsequent resolutions. Suggest:

• "This left Israel in control of three in a half times more territory than it had under the 1949 Armistice Lines."

• This is a legal distinction, and I have no understanding of its ramifications. I'm willing to buy into your verbiage for the present, but please be aware that it could go back if it becomes some sort of sticking point. • Ling.Nut 09:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Understood. I'm more than happy to discuss it further and revise as necessary to come to a consensus. This is my strongest objection to the current version, so if I put my efforts into one thing, it would be this. JRHammond (talk) 02:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

2) "Two days later Nasser requested and rapidly obtained the withdrawal of UNEF troops from Egyptian territory, and the following day Egyptian forces replaced UN positions at the strategically vital point of Sharm el-Sheikh, which overlooks the geographically and politically vital Straits of Tiran."

Suggest adding after this:

• "Israel rejected proposals to have UNEF restationed on its side of the border."

This is extremely relevant for the context, and particularly with regard to the discussion of whether the war was "preemptive" or not. Had Israel truly feared an Egyptian attack, it could very well have accepted the UNEF buffer, yet it refused. Why? If this fact is not mentioned in the lede, it should at the very least be mentioned in the body of the article in the section on that topic. Forgive me if I overlooked it, but I didn't notice it there scanning through.

• It will very, very definitely be in the body text, and maybe in the lead. After we all finish the lead together, I plan to dive straight into the analysis of the start of the war. However, the lead is already really long.

3) "Though few material facts of the war are in dispute, the motivations and intentions of the national leaders on both sides has been the subject of much speculation and debate."

Minor grammar error: "have" not "has". Plural subject.

• Tks

4) "The Six Day War has been characterized as a preemptive war, an "inadvertent war", and an action designed to preserve the credibility of Israel's deterrence strategy, as well as other things of a more controversial nature."

To what characterization(s) does the last clause refer? JRHammond (talk) 04:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• That would be Foxbats over Dimona. • Ling.Nut 09:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Gotcha. JRHammond (talk) 02:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

• Sigh. As per suggestions by User:Geometry guy in my sandbox talk page here, I now suggest we drop the entire second paragraph ("Though surrounded by nations..."). Yes, yes. Yes I know. I know that all of the stuff in that paragraph is absolutely crucial to understanding the genesis of the war. I believe that, and others of you do too. But the lead is just... too... darn... long already, and I think we do need an extremely terse summary of the actual conflict. There are currently five paragraphs (already too long). If we drop the second, then move the third ("On 14 May 1967 Nasser..") up to the second slot, then write a new paragraph about the battle and make it the third paragraph, we would still have five paragraphs, which would still perhaps be too long (though I think perhaps it might be OK), but it would be a big step in the correct direction. Your comments invited. • Ling.Nut 05:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Ling.Nut, I may be able to help you summarize the key points in condensed version. I don't have time to work on it now, but the goal would be to not drop the entire second paragraph. Please keep it for now, and I'll try to work on that soon. JRHammond (talk) 09:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Ling.Nut has got his Sandbox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ling.Nut/Sandbox) rewrite coming together. We've been working together on it and swapping ideas and suggestions, and I'm pretty happy with what he's got. My principle and perhaps only remaining concern right now is the concluding sentence in the lede:

• "The unresolved political status of the Palestinian territories and their inhabitants, plus the concurrent refugee problem, are central issues of the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict."

I don't think "unresolved political status" is a good phrase, because while true from a certain point of view, this could be interpreted by unfamiliar readers as meaning the territories are disputed, which is not the case. I've proposed a few alternatives:

• "Another lasting consequence of the war that has had enormous repercussions and which helped establish the Six Day War as a watershed event in the Middle East was the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory, which continues to this day."

• "Another consequence that established the Six Day War as a watershed event in the Middle East is the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories."

• "The Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories and its repercussions for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is another consequence that established the Six Day War as a watershed event in the Middle East."

Would like other editors' input on this. My main concern here is that to note consequences of the war in the lede but NOT mention the occupation would be a huge error of omission, since one could very easily argue this is the single most consequential result of the war, with incalculable repercussions, and not only for just the Middle East. JRHammond (talk) 11:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• I think "watershed event" is kinda cliche'• Ling.Nut 22:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't care about that exact phrase being used one way or the other, but the point is to emphasize that it was an event that shaped the history of the region in a major way, even to this day. JRHammond (talk) 08:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Pending Changes Protection - Level 1

Looking at the edit history from the past few days, weeks and months it seems this page is a good candidate for pending pages protection. In my opinion the vast number of editors here are trying to constructively work to iron out differences, thanks for your efforts. However, it's clear that some IP accounts continue to come in and edit war. I'm not big on doing sockpuppet investigations to see if socks are being used to edit war or avoid bans so I feel that Pending Changes is the solution for this article.

Since it's unclear where we are on resolving the dispute here I have left it indefinite, if things start to iron themselves out I can put a time on it. For now though I believe this should be protected at Level 1. That said, there was revert warring yesterday by registered editors, that needs to stop. Given the climate on this article you should discuss your changes here before making them. If registered editor edit warring continues I will bump this up to Level 2 pending changes protection which will require an admin or reviewer to approve edits.

Please work it out folks I will continue to watch the discussion and if further action against individual editors is needed I'll do so. --Wgfinley (talk) 18:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Good move. --Frederico1234 (talk) 19:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

We've had two blocks thus far for adding or re-adding disputed material and reverting. Again, the edit warring needs to cease or you may be blocked and further page protection will be necessary. It appears to have calmed down since I put Pending Changes in, let's keep it that way. Thanks. --Wgfinley (talk) 14:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking action, Wgfinley. Please, please continue to monitor the situation and help editors who are willing to discuss revisions and seek consensus for revisions to protect the article from editors who refuse to discuss changes and prefer to engage in edit warring. JRHammond (talk) 04:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

@Wgfinley, there's something weird about how you setuped the protection: the page is pc-protected so only autoconfirmed users' edits are immediately visible, but the page is also semi-protected so only autoconfirmed users can edit anyway... Rami R 07:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

@Rami - thanks for catching that, it should be corrected now. --WGFinley (talk) 16:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The current page states that the strike is "widely described" as preemptive, but doesn't mention that this description is also widely disputed, not least by numerous notable historians and scholars. It also skews the Egyptian denial by preceding it with "Despite Nasser's war rhetoric and military posturing" (one could, of course, similarly skew Israel's claims).

Given that in all previous discussions in which editors were directly asked to come out in favour of a qualified or unqualified formulation the qualified formulation (along the lines of "an attack which Israel later described as preemptive") received a substantial majority, why does the page not reflect this?

I propose that we go with the following neutral, factual, and I hope uncontroversial formulation:

"On June 5, 1967, Israel launched an attack on Egypt. The Israelis subsequently said Egyptian forces had been about to attack them, and that the strike was therefore "preemptive". Egypt denied this, saying Israel's attack was an unwarranted and illegal act of aggression. Academics and commentators remain divided on the issue." Phersu (talk) 13:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I am categorically opposing your changes, and going to revert you. Please do not insert POV in the article without even gaining the consensus. --Mbz1 (talk) 17:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I can pinpoint the reason the page currently does not reflect the discussion and agreement on wording in the 3rd paragraph. It is because users who refuse to discuss their objections or argue for their proposals on Talk continually revert the agreed-upon version (pending further revision after further discussion) back to this version which has been rejected. Yet for undoing their reverts and returning the article to the agreed-for-now version, I've twice been blocked by administrators. There seems to be a problem that admins want to take action to stop the edit warring, but make no effort to understand the situation to actually be able to do so in a productive manner. This is a serious problem. I've tried reasoning with numerous admins about this,to explain the situation, and request that leeway be granted to editors implementing agreed-upon versions, but nobody seems to want to hear, if we may draw conclusions from my repeatedly being blocked for implementing the agreed version. For now, I'm not editing the article, and instead will focus my efforts on helping Ling.Nut get his rewrite ready to go. If someone else wants to fix the article back to an agreed version, please go ahead. JRHammond (talk) 02:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Preemptive strike

Having proposed a revision nearly a week ago (see above) and receiving no objections, I have now changed the relevant part of the intro to the following:

"On June 5, 1967, Israel launched an attack on Egypt. The Israelis subsequently said Egyptian forces had been about to attack them, and that the strike was therefore preemptive.[d] Egypt denied this, saying Israel's attack was an unwarranted and illegal act of aggression.[f] Scholars remain divided on the issue."

In light of the support editors have given to qualifying the word "preemptive" every time the issue has been formally raised, could I ask that anyone wishing to make substantive changes discuss them here first? Phersu (talk) 17:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

In order to maintain continuity and avoid confusion, I am pasting Mbz1's subsequent comment (see above) here: "I am categorically opposing your changes, and going to revert you. Please do not insert POV in the article without even gaining the consensus. --Mbz1 (talk) 17:35, 5 August 2010"

In reply, I would ask:

1) Which part of my version is POV?

2) Why you felt it necessary to revert without discussion?

3) Why - in stating that I haven't gained the consensus - you ignore the fact that each time the issue has been formally raised, a clear majority of editors have supported qualifying the word preemptive in order to maintain Wikipedia's neutrality on a very contentious issue? Phersu (talk) 18:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it's disengenuous to say that "scholars are divided on the issue" when you have Finkelstein, Chomsky, Mersheimer and Quigley on one side and virtually everybody else on the other. Moreover, most, if not all of the cited sources in favor of preemption have not generally expressed a view that favors one side over the other whereas we all know where the four Musketeers stand--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

What's disingenuous, Jiujitsuguy, is to employ ad hominem arguments as an objection to seeking NPOV on the "preemptive" issue. Moreover, what evidence is provided by whatever sources to support the claim that the attack was "preemptive"? We don't need to turn to Finkelstein or Chomsky for the evidence. We may turn to Oren, who notes that the Israeli intelligence estimate was the same as the U.S. one, which was that given Israel's military superiority, it was highly unlikely that Nasser was going to attack, and even if he did, Israel would win within two weeks -- one if Israel attacked first. We may turn to Israeli prime minsters Begin or Rabin, both of whom acknowledge the war was not preemptive, but a war of choice. This is not controversial. You are only revealing your bias here. JRHammond (talk) 01:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Jiujitsuguy, I've cited a report published by the American Society of International Law Task Force on Terrorism [8]; journal articles by Jeanne Woods and James Donovan [9]; and James Thuo Gathii [10]. They each concluded that Israel violated the customary law prohibition of preemptive war where there is no armed attack or an instant, overwhelming threat. They explain that the prohibition is a jus cogens customary international law norm (opinio juris) supported by the majority of scholars and states ("the doctrine of sources"). They based those assessments on lengthy explanations made by primary sources, including Rabin, Begin, etc. (e.g. the Wars of Choice speech: [11]). Do you have any published source which says that those authors are not discussing the majority view held by the scholarly community? harlan (talk) 20:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Harlan. James Thuo Gathii links to an abstract that makes no mention of Israel or the Six-Day War. Mary Ellen O’Connell principally relies on Quigley and that 42-year LeMond interview with Rabin that I’ve yet to see in full context. Jeanne Woods references the Six-Day War in a footnote and cites O’Connell who in-turn, cites Quigley. Back to square one. You’ve actually proven my point.
• Concerning Begin, the Israel bashing camp cites this quote repeatedly In June 1967 we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him. But they fail to cite this quote which immediately follows the aforementioned and places it in proper context, This was a war of self-defence in the noblest sense of the term. The government of national unity then established decided unanimously: We will take the initiative and attack the enemy, drive him back, and thus assure the security of Israel and the future of the nation.
• Concerning Rabin, extensive use is made of this so-called LeMond interview that allegedly occurred 42 years ago and nobody has yet produced the interview in its entirety so that it may be examined in proper context. In his address to the Knesset on 3 October 1994 he said this of the Six-Day War, "More than 27 years ago, when a sharp sword was held over our necks, the IDF went to war to defend our lives."(Rabin and Israel's national security, p.184) He likened the events preceeding the Six-Day War as a sword over Israel's neck and stated that Israel fought for its life. That doesn't sound like a man who was dismissive over war prospects. In fact, Rabin in his memoirs refers to Israel's action as preemptive, stating the following, "but before the tanks began to roll, we would place our fate in the hands of the air force whose Preemptive strike was to destroy Egypt's planes on the ground and give us control of the skies." (The Rabin memoirs p. 98)--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Concerning Begin, the fact that he claimed the war was one "of self-defence in the noblest sense of the term" does not change the fact that he also acknowledged that the war was a war of "choice" and that there was no real indication that Nasser was going to attack. The bottom line is that Israel's own intelligence assessment was that it was extremely unlikely that Nasser would attack. The U.S. intelligence assessment was the same. The burden of proof is on those who argue the war was "preemptive" to provide evidence that there was an imminent threat of attack from Egypt. The documentary record simply does not support that thesis. Period. JRHammond (talk) 16:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem Hammond. Since you like Begin's quote so much we'll refer to the Six Day War "as a war of self-defense in the noblest sense," and we'll stick that in the lede. You can't go around cherry-picking what you like and don't like. Wikipedia isn't your own personal blog.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I never suggested putting Begin's quote in the lede. I've only observed the fact that Begin has tacitly acknowledged the war was not preemptive. That is a fact, and there is no "cherry-picking" involved in pointing that out. Again, the fact that he also characterized the war as "self-defense" does not belie the fact that he also said it was a war of "choice" and that there was no real indication that Nasser was going to attack. Moreover, he bottom line is that Israel's own intelligence assessment was that it was extremely unlikely that Nasser would attack. The U.S. intelligence assessment was the same. The burden of proof is on those who argue the war was "preemptive" to provide evidence that there was an imminent threat of attack from Egypt. The documentary record simply does not support that thesis. Period. Now, if you'd like to produce an actual valid argument in your next reply, I would welcome you to do so, if you are able. JRHammond (talk) 23:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Jiujitsuguy, there are a number of detailed published accounts regarding the discussions between the Israeli Cabinet members and the General staff prior to the war. They include Rabin's memoir, Orin's "Six Days of War", and Gluska's "Israel's Decision To Go To War, June 2, 1967". They confirm General Peled's claim that the survival argument was developed only after the war.

The fact that the American Society of International Law task force and other mainstream scholars cite John Quigley or Yoram Dinstein merely demonstrates that their analysis is considered relevant by other PhDs in their field of expertise. Do you have any published critiques, from scholarly sources, of the analysis performed by either man with regard to Israel's first strike against Egypt in the Six Day War?

I gave you a link to a free download (pdf) of James Thuo Gathii's article. Gathii explained on page 12 that only a small number of States have proposed a new doctrine on the pre-emptive use of force and that their conflicting practices are viewed as violations of established norms. On page 8 he discusses Israel's "first strike" against Egypt in 1967 and says that "Few regarded it as a good example of a permissible anticipatory attack under the Caroline test, especially after it became clear following the attack that there was no overwhelming threat that justified the attack to ensure Israel’s survival. Many States criticized the attack, which made it clear that the attack would not serve as a precedent to legitimize “a general right of anticipatory self defense.”" He also cited analysis from Yoram Dinstein and John Quigley. Do you have any published sources which say Gathii is not discussing views held by the majority of the scholarly community? The policy in WP:ASSERT prohibits editors from misrepresenting the relative prominence of opposing views.

Mary Ellen O’Connell's article contains over one hundred footnotes that contain one or more citations. Her analysis of the Six Day War contains citations to Rabin's Le Monde interview, and analysis from both Yoram Dinstein and John Quigley. If you wish to challenge her published legal analysis of Rabin's Le Monde interview you have to do so on the basis of reliable published sources, not upon your personal belief that O'Connell, or the ASIL, are Israel bashers. No one has to "produce" Rabin's Le Monde interview for your examination. See WP:Access to sources

On page 98 of his memoirs Rabin does not mention an impending Egyptian attack. He says the air strike was a preliminary to rolling Israeli tanks into Egyptian territory. During the same discussion in "the Pit" (on pages 96 and 97) Dayan and Eshkol address the need to solidify or consolidate Israel's territorial gains.[12] and [13] In any event, the IAF operational plan mentioned on page 98 of Rabin's memoirs was not developed in response to the events of 1967. General Mordechai Hod described the step-wise refinement of the plan as a years-long process, i.e. "Sixteen years planning had gone into those initial eighty minutes. We lived with the plan, we slept on the plan, we ate the plan. Constantly we perfected it." -- Alfred M. Lilienthal, The Zionist Connection, New York: Dodd, Mead & Co., 1978, pp. 558-559. Rabin's memoirs say that he and GHQ thought Egypt was repeating the moves taken during Operation Rotem and that the Egyptians would withdraw their forces from the Sinai. [14] He described the events preceding the war as "humiliating pinpricks" that might effect the IDF's deterrent capacity. [15]

In the Le Monde and National Defense College speech, Rabin and Begin both describe a preventative war. The assessment of the Egyptians and the majority of legal scholars say it was not an example of legal self-defense. harlan (talk) 20:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

If I may add to harlan’s point, Jiujitsuguy mentions Finkelstein, Chomsky, Mearsheimer (& Walt) and Quigley – all of them notable academics who are frequently cited in scholarly literature and all of them solidly opposed to the notion that Israel’s attack on Egypt was preemptive (ie, launched because an attack by Egypt on Israel was imminent).

Jiujitsuguy says “virtually everybody else” disagrees with them. That’s incorrect. Many notable scholars, politicians and commentators other than those Jiujitsuguy cites have cast serious doubt on the claim that an attack by Egypt was imminent. They include:

• Menachem Begin (Prime Minister of Israel)
• Yitzhak Rabin (Prime Minister of Israel)
• Lyndon B Johnson (US President)
• Meir Amit (Head of Mossad)
• Professor Mary Ellen O’Connell (Professor of Law, Notre Dame University)
• Professor Roger Fisher (Professor of Law emeritus, Harvard Law School)
• Sandy Tolan (Internationally-acclaimed academic, journalist and author)
• Sir Anthony Nutting (UK Minister of State and author of “Nasser”)
• James Reston (Executive Editor of The New York Times and Pulitzer Prize Winner)
• Dr Ersun Kurtulus (Associate Editor of the British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies)
• Professor Joel Beinin (Donald J. McLachlan Professor of History at Stanford University)
• Professor Henry Cattan (renowned international jurist, academic and writer)

I think most of the relevant quotes can be found among the many discussion page archives attached to this article, but if you wish me to dig out any particular ones I’ll be happy to do so.Phersu (talk) 00:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Please listen:

1. Wikipedia is completely unable to say the strike was preemptive. Wikipedia is completely unable to say the strike was NOT preemptive. Can we all please use that as a starting point? Everyone needs to get used to this idea right now: your side of the story will NOT be the "official" version. End of story.
2. Moreover, versions that include both sides of the story, but frame it in a biased (or even point/counterpoint) manner are ALSO not acceptable to Wikipedia. We can't say, "Some folks say it was preemptive" [list 45 sources, which is way way way too many, Jiujitsuguy], however [here add many factoids attempting to prove that statement is false – I'm looking at you, JRHammond]. Jiujitsu guy wants "preemptive" to be the official version. JRHammond wants to mention "preemptive", but then retract/overwhelm it with a buzzing swarm of "howevers". Neither of these two approaches will fly, since they are both violations of NPOV.

Here's what we're gonna do:

1. We are gonna present both sides of the story.
2. We are going to present each side in its own separate subsection of a larger section titled "Causes of the war" (or similar), so we won't have a dizzying ping-pong of point/counterpoint that is a veritable welcome wagon for POV bias and (obviously enough) edit warring..
3. We are gonna use only a modest number of the BEST sources to establish each point, because a huge column of quotes looks unprofessional (biggest reason, in my mind), slows load time, is distracting & makes the article harder to read, and makes it almost certain that we're quoting some folks of the "Larry King" caliber, who are not reliable sources.
4. We are gonna make the WP:LEAD very bland. We are not gonna argue or point/counterpoint in the lead.

That all I can think of now, but I may be forgetting something.

The main point is: NO OTHER APPROACH is gonna fly. Get it into your head now.

• Ling.Nut 00:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

What I want, Ling.Nut, is to state the FACTS, which are that Israel claimed the attack was preemptive despite the fact that its own intelligence assessment was that Nasser would in all likelihood NOT attack. Please explain to me how stating these noncontroversial facts violates NPOV. Thanks. I'm in agreement with the rest of what you say here, but obviously take issue with you saying that what I want is not NPOV. That is absolutely false. JRHammond (talk) 01:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Marshal your cites and quotes in the appropriate section. Do not put them in the lead; it will bias the article. Do not point/counterpoint in the "preemptive" section; it will invite (nay, guarantee) edit warring. By the way, a secondary goal I forgot to mention is: we need to at least try to make both sections the same length, to avoid even the appearance of violating WP:WEIGHT. That isn't a hard law like the other things I said, but it should be a soft goal. • Ling.Nut 01:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

It's appropriate to note the facts mentioned in the lede. You state doing so "will bias the article", but you offer no explanation as to why that would be the case, despite my request for an explanation of how stating these facts would violate NPOV. JRHammond (talk) 13:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Though Ling.Nut's general approach to improving the article seems sensible to me, in the meantime we still have a third paragraph which, in my opinion, violates NPOV. I proposed what I believe is a NPOV version last week and received no objections, only to be reverted without discussion when I finally carried out the edit. Rather than re-reverting, may I once again put forward my proposed alternative and invite discussion:

"On June 5, 1967, Israel launched an attack on Egypt. The Israelis subsequently said Egyptian forces had been about to attack them, and that the strike was therefore preemptive.[d] Egypt denied this, saying Israel's attack was an unwarranted and illegal act of aggression.[f] Scholars remain divided on the issue." Phersu (talk) 16:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I completely understand the frustration. I've been twice blocked for reverting editors who undo the agreed upon version without discussion. I approve your wording, but would like at the same time to suggest: "On June 5, 1967, Israel launched an attack on Egypt. Israel initially claimed Egypt had attacked first, but subsequently said that the war had been preemptive. Egypt denied this, saying Israel's attack was an unwarranted and illegal act of aggression."JRHammond (talk) 16:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Given frequent confusion over the specific meaning of "preemptive" in this context, however, do you think we should reword your version to read: "Israel initially claimed Egypt had attacked first, but subsequently said an Egyptian strike had been imminent, and that Israel's action was therefore preemptive." Also, what do you feel about the line: "Scholars remain divided on the issue"? Phersu (talk) 17:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

In his book "Middle East" Anthony Ham writes: "The Egyptian army was mobilised and the country put on a war footing. On 5 June, Israel responded with a devastating pre-emptive strike that wiped out virtually the entire Egyptian air force in a single day"

In his book "The Third Cell" Anthony D'Egidio writes: "This preemptive strike took out all the medium-range bombers along with their support aircraft"

In his book "100 years of air power & aviation" Robin D. S. Higham writes: "The Israelis chose to make a preemptive strike in June 1967

I could have continued the list of sources, but I am not sure there's any use in doing this.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Phersu, that wording is fine by me. Approve. As for the inclusion of scholars being divided, I'm neutral on it. I don't think it's necessary, but would have no problem with it's inclusion.

Mbz1 (1) "The Egyptian army was mobilised and the country put on a war footing." This is true. However, it's not to say the Egyptian positions weren't defensive -- as U.S. intelligence assessed them to be. (2) "This preemptive strike took out all the medium-range bombers along with their support aircraft". This is an assertion, not evidence. (3) "The Israelis chose to make a preemptive strike in June 1967". This is an assertion, not evidence.

So you've managed to prove that people assert that the war was preemptive. No revelations there. Fact remains there is no strong evidence from the documentary record to support this claim. JRHammond (talk) 23:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Ling.Nut's Rewrite

I've been discussing the rewrite at length with Ling.Nut. Discussion of it is here, on my talk page, and on Ling.Nut's talk page, so what I'd like to do is bring the discussion together here, in this one place. While I approve of most of the new lede, here are a few initial issues I'd like to resolve through discussion and consensus building:

1) I'm insisting that the lede, where it discusses UNEF, should note the fact that Israel refused to have it restationed on its side. Ling.Nut is reluctant to include this fact. I don't see any legitimate reason whatsoever to omit a known uncontroversial fact, and willful omission of known relevant facts is a violation of WP:NPOV because a partial account will lead readers to draw certain conclusions they may not draw if they had a fuller account of the facts. I'd like to know others' thoughts. Approve or disapprove, and if you disapprove, why? JRHammond (talk) 06:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Approve. Include in lede. JRHammond (talk) 06:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Approve. UN Secretary General U Thant urged Israel to allow the UNEF to be repositioned on its side of the border, as did the USA, Britain and Canada, but Israel refused. Both U Thant and Odd Bull, Chief of Staff of UN forces in the Middle East, later stated that if Israel had acceded to the request, War might have been avoided. If Egypt's expulsion of the UNEF from its side of the border is significant, then surely Israel's refusal to reposition the UNEF on its side of the border is also significant. Phersu (talk) 07:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• Undecided Need better evidence, better analysis, etc. • Ling.Nut 09:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand, Ling. Better evidence for what, exactly? JRHammond (talk) 11:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• For the significance of the fact; not the existence of the fact. • Ling.Nut 12:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Israel’s Foreign Minister, Ebba Eban, had argued that UNEF’s withdrawal made the Sinai “safe for belligerency” and increased the chances of war. He also said that Egyptian preparations in the Sinai posed the “chief danger” to Israel. Yet Israel refused to have UNEF redeployed to its side of the border when urged to do so by the UN and others.

In his memoir, UN Secretary-General U Thant wrote: “If only Israel had agreed to permit UNEF to be stationed on its side of the border, even for a short duration, the course of history could have been different. Diplomatic efforts to avert the pending catastrophe might have prevailed; war might have been averted”.

Various scholars have stressed this point precisely because the expulsion of UNEF by Egypt is so frequently cited as one of the reasons Israel supposedly felt vulnerable to attack and believed an attack to be imminent. They argue that if the removal of the UN buffer was so significant, why did Israel allow it to disappear completely, rather than simply shift it over the border?

Hence, I believe it important to mention both facts: Despite urging from the UN, Egypt expelled UNEF from its side of the border. And despite urging from the UN, Israel refused to allow UNEF to be moved to its side of the border.Phersu (talk) 12:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

It is absolutely significant. Oren spends three pages discussing it, as you already know. Finkelstein responds to Oren's discussion of it in the Journal of Palestine Studies article I cited for you previously. Phersu makes a further good argument in addition to the one I've already given you. I fail to comprehend what more "evidence" of the facts significance you need to see. It is a fact that is prima facie significant. JRHammond (talk) 02:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

2) The sandbox currently asks for sources on the above (Israel rejected UNEF). Here are several:

a) If UNEF had been deployed on both sides of the Line as originally envisaged in pursuance of the General Assembly resolution, its buffer function would not necessarily have ended. However, its presence on the Israel side of the Line has never been permitted. The fact that UNEF was not stationed on the Israel side of the Line was a recognition of the unquestioned sovereign right of Israel to withhold its consent for the stationing of the Force. [16]

b) Yet a simple solution to the UNEF conundrum existed, U Thant believed, and he presented it the next morning, May 18, to the Israeli ambassador. The UN force would cross the frontier and redeploy on Israeli territory. [Oren, p. 72.]

c) It is hard to understand, however, why stationing UNEF on the Egyptian side of the border preserved the peace while stationing it on the Israeli side would not have or, put otherwise, why UNEF would deter Egyptian aggression on the Egyptian side but not the Israeli side. [Norman Finkelstein, "Abba Eban with Footnotes", Journal of Palestine Studies XXXII, no. 3, Spring 2003, pages 74-89]

3) Current version, first paragraph, reads: "...greatly reducing its geographic vulnerability to attack from neighboring states". I strongly object to this wording, as it implies that a) Israel's neighbors were the aggressors and b) Israel was "vulnerable". The former is a point of view, highly debatable (an understatement), and the latter a judgment seemingly without basis, given the fact that Israel, uncontroversially, had a vastly superior military force. I would argue this violates WP:NPOV and should therefore be revised or removed to read more neutrally. JRHammond (talk) 06:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Approve. Revise wording. Why say the capture of territory reduced Israel's "vulnerability"? What about the vulnerability of the Palestinian territory, which has been under occupation for 40 years? This is Israeli POV.

Approve. It should read more neutrally.Phersu (talk) 07:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• Nope. This is gonna be well-sourced. Keep. • Ling.Nut 09:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

What difference does it make if it's well-sourced if it's not NPOV? It would be fine to include if we also included the Arab POV of what Israel's capture of territory meant. But to just state what it meant for Israel's POV would seem to me to clearly violate NPOV. JRHammond (talk) 11:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• Saying that Israel's defensive ability was improved because its borders (disputed/occupied/controlled whatever; I know they are not legal borders, I'm just talking here) does not imply that attack was imminent. It merely merely states the obvious: that Israel's defensive ability was improved. I intend to offer cites that say simply that Israel's defensive ability was improved, and that it was a wee-tiny country with major cities in easy bombing range of its foes. I do not intend to state, or imply or suggest, that this means that the Arab nations intended to attack. It just means it made it somewhat less easy for them to do so. If other editors try to use that as an excuse to say the war was preemptive, I'll move their text into an appropriate "preemptive attack" section or subsection.... moreover, it seems to me that the Arab POV is very thoroughly covered. Is our plan, then, to completely delete the Israeli POV? If you think mentioning it first biases the reader's interpretations, then we can surely move it down to that overlong last paragraph. but... I just.. want the paragraphs to be a bit more equally-sized... • Ling.Nut 12:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• I have significantly reordered the sandbox lead, preserving all content. This deemphasizes the "defensive borders" info (but preserves it), and enhances the prominence of the "occupied" verbiage. • Ling.Nut 13:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

It may not imply attack was imminent, but it does assume aggressive intent on the part of the Arabs. I don't think you're understanding my objection here. I don't dispute that this is hypothetically true. What I am saying is that here you are telling the consequence of Israel's capture of territory FOR ISRAEL. That's Israeli POV. So, if you're going to do that, to comply with NPOV, you need to also state the consequence of Israel's capture of territory FOR THE ARABS. Arab POV also needs to be included here, or the sentence scrapped altogether. JRHammond (talk) 02:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

4) The current version reads: "The Six Day War has been characterized as a preemptive war, an "inadvertent war", and an action designed to preserve the credibility of Israel's deterrence strategy, among other things." My argument is that if we are going to include different POVs with regard to characterizations of the war, how can we possibly omit the Arab POV, which was that the war was an act of aggression? It prima facie violates WP:NPOV to offer the Israeli POV but not the Arab one. JRHammond (talk) 06:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Approve. Include Arab POV. JRHammond (talk) 06:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Approve. Egypt said it was a war of aggression. Phersu (talk) 07:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• Superseded The working sandbox already has a sentence: ""Israel and Egypt have both been described as either the victim or the aggressor."

Ling, This logic defeats itself, since by the same reasoning we don't need to add Israeli POV that it was "preemptive" in this sentence in question. If we do include the Israeli POV of how they characterized the war (two versions of Israeli POV, actually), then we must also include the Arab POV. JRHammond (talk) 11:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• I thought we already covered the victim/aggressor bit, and you said it was OK. That sentence ("Israel and Egypt have both been described as either the victim or the aggressor") absolutely does contain the Arab POV that Israel was the aggressor. Moreover, it licenses the body text of the article to discuss and analyze that point, within an appropriate section or subsection.

Yes, I am OK with "Israel and Egypt have both been described as either the victim or the aggressor". That is neutral, offering both POVs. But I strongly object to "The Six Day War has been characterized as a preemptive war, an "inadvertent war", and an action designed to preserve the credibility of Israel's deterrence strategy, among other things" because it includes two characterizations from Israeli POV and NONE from Arab POV. To comply with NPOV, the Arab POV MUST be included here, or the sentence scrapped. JRHammond (talk) 02:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Isn't saying that the war was waged in order to preserve Israel's deterrence strategy the equivalent of saying that it was a war of aggression? Certain commentators have argued that the Israeli attack against Gaza the other year was fought to re-establish Israel's "deterrence capacity", meaning its ability to strike fear into the Arabs. That would certainly be the same, speaking in terms of using aggressive force, as if the war was fought to gain land or to drive out the population. Shoplifter (talk) 04:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it is not equivalent. Legally speaking, yes, a war of "deterrence" would be aggression. The two are not mutually exclusive. But just as all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles squares, all wars of "deterrence" are aggression, but not all aggressive wars are "deterrence". Saying the war was done as "deterrence" attributes the Arab states with aggressive intent and motivations of self-defense on the part of the Israelis, which is 100% Israeli POV. Both "preemptive" and "deterrence" are Israeli POV. How can the article state two variants of Israeli POV, but not state Arab POV, which is not that the war was deterrent, but that it was an act of aggression and war waged to conquer even more territory? WP:NPOV demands that BOTH POVs be noted, or neither. I don't suggest the latter. JRHammond (talk) 04:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think your reasoning is valuable, even though, it seems to me, we both agree that initating a war on the basis of deterrence is in itself a war of aggression. But your explication makes a good case for being more careful about which words are chosen to describe the motives of the aggressor. Shoplifter (talk) 07:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad we're in agreement on that point. Do you also agree, then, that the Arab POV that the war was an act of aggression should be included, if we're going to include various POVs of the war as is presently the case in Ling's draft? And if we're not going to include the Arab POV, then neither should we include the Israeli POV? Do you agree this is necessary to comply with WP:NPOV? Would appreciate your further thoughts (as well as others'). I'd really like to get this lede hammered out solid. Ling.Nut has done some great work with his rewrite, and I'm hoping editors can discuss and arrive at a consensus approval of his draft, so it can be implemented ASAP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JRHammond (talk • contribs) 13:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I principally agree with your take on WP:NPOV, but I'm willing to consider what Ling.Nut suggests would be a compromise resolution before making any hard and fast rules as to what should and should not be included. I think his description above on what to be expected from a neutral lead is reasonable. I will hold off my view until he presents his proposal. But yes, anything that is apparently and unjustifiably tendentious should not be accepted. Shoplifter (talk) 14:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

If we're going to mention that there are various descriptions of the war, including the suggestion that it was preemptive, we also have to include the Arab position, that it was a war of aggression. Phersu (talk) 06:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Have you had a chance to look at the map lately? Do you really believe that Israel that could be seen only through a magnifying glass will wage a war of aggression on 20+ Arab countries? Or you really believe that Israel left Gaza to take it back? Or you really believe that, if Israel wanted to take back Gaza, they could not have done it? Israel wants peace. Israel fights for her survival. In 1948 Robert Kennedy said:

“ The die has long since been cast; the fight will take place. The Jews with their backs to the sea, fighting for their very homes, with 101 percent morale, will accept no compromise. On the other hand, the Arabs say: "We shall bring Moslem brigades from Pakistan, we shall lead a religious crusade for all loyal followers of Mohammed, we shall crush forever the invader. Whether it takes three months, three years, or 30, we will carry on the fight. Palestine will be Arab. We shall accept no compromise. ”

More than 60 years later it proves to be the right statement over and over again.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, Mbz1, I don't see what relevance your opinion has to the issues I've raised here. If you'd care to address my point on the basis of the facts and logic I present, please go right ahead. JRHammond (talk) 04:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

JRHammond, I posted the comment in the response to Shoplifter, but now you inserted your comment between my comment and Shoplifter's comment.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

You nested it only one level, so it seemed to me it was a reply to my comment. But not matter, I don't see what relevance your opinion has to the issue address by Shoplifter. If you'd care to address his point on the basis of the facts and logic he presents, please go right ahead. JRHammond (talk) 05:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1, I too thought your comment was directed toward JRHammond. Either way, as he points out, it does not provide any rational argument related to my previous comment. Shoplifter (talk) 07:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

5) Current version reads: "The unresolved political status of the Palestinian territories and their inhabitants, plus the concurrent refugee problem, are central issues of the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict." I strongly object to this, as it omits and whitewashes the fact that the Palestinian territories have been under a more than 4-decades-long foreign military occupation. This is completely uncontroversial, so why go to such great lengths to avoid mentioning the fact? It doesn't make any sense whatsoever. I don't see any legitimate reason NOT to mention what is arguably the single most significant consequence of the war. Seriously, going out of the way to omit this fact is just plain ridiculous.

• Superseded Sandbox already mentions "occupied". I am, however, quite willing to work out the objectionable phrase "unresolved political status of the Palestinian territories"

Current version notes one consequence being a rise in Islamism. If that is going to be mentioned, I think it is absolutely incumbent to also note what one can easily argue is the most significant consequence, which is the occupation. I have proposed several variants: (a) "Another lasting consequence of the war that has had enormous repercussions and which helped establish the Six Day War as a watershed event in the Middle East was the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory, which continues to this day." (b) "Another consequence that established the Six Day War as a watershed event in the Middle East is the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories." (c) "The Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories and its repercussions for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is another consequence that established the Six Day War as a watershed event in the Middle East."

I'm not adamant in the least bit about the word, only that the occupation as a consequence of the war be at least MENTIONED. Anyone who disagrees, state your reasons please. I don't see any legitimate reason to omit the fact whatsoever. How can we NOT mention this? JRHammond (talk) 02:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Approve. Note consequence of occupation in lede. JRHammond (talk) 06:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Approve. Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza (and other, non-Palestinian areas) were seminal consequences of the War.Phersu (talk) 07:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• Superseded All of the above already covered. Please reread the sandbox version carefully, including the new phrase at the very end. • Ling.Nut 09:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved I see that now, thanks for the update, Ling. JRHammond (talk) 11:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not Opposed per se to putting the UNEF bit in the lead; I want its inclusion fully defended before it does (or doesn't) go in.
• I'm not Opposed per se to your wording of the final sentence of the LEAD; I wanna hash it out further. • Ling.Nut 02:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

All due respect, when I presented my argument, you replied "You are flat wrong". And you repeatedly argued that sources that lend the fact weight must be provided, despite the fact I'd already presented you with two very prominent sources writing from two opposing viewpoints who did just that. So forgive me for interpreting that as opposition inclusion of the fact. But, fair enough, I apparently misinterpreted. How's "reluctant" work for you? JRHammond (talk) 02:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• I didn't mean that your conclusion that the UNEF bit should go in the lead is "flat wrong"; I meant that the logic you used to get to that conclusion is wrong. I'm sorry if I was harmfully unclear. I am quite busy in RL and am juggling two tasks at once. I apologize. • Ling.Nut 03:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

No misunderstanding on that point. My logic is sound. JRHammond (talk) 04:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I would like to get other editors comments, approval or disapproval, please. JRHammond (talk) 06:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's move our working version of the lead into the article now

• I was surprised to see people still arguing about the dreaded third paragraph of the current lead. I was under the impression that nearly everyone thinks the lead in User:Ling.Nut/Sandbox has many advantages over the current text.
• We are depriving Wikipedia's general readership (the folks "out there") of a markedly improved text.
• The only sticking points with the working version are:

1. JRHammond doesn't want "greatly reducing [Israel's] geographic vulnerability to attack from neighboring states"
2. JRHammond wants the very last sentence altered to give a sense of the scope of the impact of the Jewish Occupation on regional politics.
3. JRHammond wants to include the fact that Israel declined UNEF forces; J-guy does not.
4. J-guy doesn't want "inadvertent" included.
5. J-guy wants the article to state unequivocally that the attack was preemptive.

• With all due respect and in the humblest terms possible, I'm afraid that the conclusion is inescapable that #4 would simply be impossible. The number of extremely reliable sources taking that tack simply cannot be brushed side. In a similar way, #5 is also impossible. In addition to (again) ignoring a wide swath of critical opinion, that would be reduce the article to an editorial.
• As for JRHammond's wishes, some are more debatable, and some are less so.
• The point remains, the version in user space is far superior.
• Let's consign the current lead to the dustbin (where it belongs), move the version in user space into the article now, and debate its merits from that standpoint. As I said, we are depriving the wider readership of a clearly superior version. • Ling.Nut 21:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• Approve. To be honest, I think I have addressed almost every one of JR's concerns. We can argue about UNEF later. • Ling.Nut 13:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• Absolutely Approve. We can continue make further tweaks after as deemed necessary through discussion and consensus forming. Hope to get more editors to comment on my thoughts/suggestions about how to improve it even further. JRHammond (talk) 23:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• Approve for now It was a preemptive and inescapable war, which is confirmed by hundreds of reliable sources. To say anything different than that will be POV pushing. --Mbz1 (talk) 00:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• You'll recall my earlier remarks that Wikipedia is not permitted to take an editorial position. If you are inflexible on this point, then you have reduced the premise for your opposition to a single-issue position that stands in stark contrast to Wikipedia's five pillars. I hope you will reconsider. I am hoping we can all embrace a WP:LEAD that is bland, and does not take positions. • Ling.Nut 00:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I am more or less fine with the lead that you have in your sand box right now, if it is what are you going to put in.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm quite puzzled. Then why did you "Strongly Disapprove"? • Ling.Nut 00:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Because #4 and #5 are represented in the version in your sand box, but now you seem to be backing out from those or I am missing something?--Mbz1 (talk) 01:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I very definitely want #4 and #5 to be mentioned in the WP:LEAD, and I definitely want each of those propositions to receive its own subsection containing WP:RS supporting their stance (and not containing even one word of rebuttal; other propositions also have their own section). What I do not suggest is that the article categorically state that #4 and #5 are absolutely true – or absolutely false. Each "cause of the war" theory (for lack of a better word!) will get its own section, and within that section, it can support its premise as strongly as reliable sources will permit. Does that make sense? • Ling.Nut 01:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1, It is the lede in the sandbox right now that you just strongly disapproved of. If you approve of what's there right now, please edit your reply to read "approve" so we can move on and get this thing done. JRHammond (talk) 01:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

You've gone back to arguing about details of the implementation, which is not helpful. I want to agree on the interface (that is, the WP:LEAD). Please do save arguments about POV for another thread. In fact, I would meekly suggest that you strike through that post, as irrelevant... • Ling.Nut 01:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I trust my comment now reads to your satisfaction. JRHammond (talk) 03:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I sound schoolmarmish. I just wanna stay focused on the immediate present, and the issues at hand... • Ling.Nut 03:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Totally understood. Feel free to remove this bit (including this and my previous comment) if you want to clean it up. JRHammond (talk) 04:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• Approve. The proposed version is indeed superior to the current version. --Frederico1234 (talk) 05:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
• Approve. I second the above comment of Frederico1234. Shoplifter (talk) 06:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
• Approve. The proposed version is better. Phersu (talk) 07:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
• Approve. Articles should be written for the typical reader, and this is particularly true for the lead. Readers of an encyclopedia do not want or need to be told what to think. Instead they seek to be informed. Readers who already have a strong view are unlikely to be persuaded by an article that obviously promotes an alternative view. Instead articles should be written to provide readers who have an open mind with more information. Such readers will react against information with a leading bias. Wikipedia is not the place to resolve arguments about what happened or who was in the right. A good test of an NPOV article is whether it is possible for an outside reader to guess the views of the editors. A POV article adds nothing to the beliefs of those with that view, and will alienate those who do not share it. In all these respects, the sandbox lead improves upon the current one, but editors need to take the general principles on board if they truly aspire to write a better article, one that people will be inspired to read. Geometry guy 23:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Rusk's memo

As I've written previously, I was the one who added the information about the US intelligence assessment several months back. This included Johnson's emphatic response to Eban on Israel's military superiority visavi the Arab states, the growing contemporary view that preemption was seen as unwarranted by the Johnson administration, and, the famous memo sent by Secretary of State Dean Rusk to the President on May 26.

On the issue of the memo, I think it has some rather interesting clauses which are not currently noted in the article, but perhaps should be. As of now, the one line that is included in the article reflects the US rejection of the Israeli claims of an imminent attack: "Our intelligence does not confirm [the] Israeli estimate." But if you read further on, the picture painted by Rusk of the political positioning by the Johnson administration becomes quite the more elucidating. For example, he goes on to state the following:

"We put the case against preemptive strikes to Eban very hard last night, both from the military and the political points of view. I pointed out to him that we have lived with this issue a long time in connection with the Soviet Union, and come down definitively against the idea. Despite this, Eban still believes, I think, that in the context of Israel's problem, surrounded by menacing concentrations (armed among other things, with nerve gas), he needs something pretty solid to hold the line against his hawks.

They have absolutely no faith in the possibility of anything useful coming out of the U.N."

Further below, Rusk makes this assertion:

"We will consult with the Israeli Government at every step of the way, and we expect the Israelis to reciprocate. We know and appreciate that in light of the difficulties which have developed as a result of Nasser's unilateral steps, it is difficult for Israel to be patient and prudent in circumstances where its vital interests could be adversely affected. Nevertheless we can proceed only on the assumption that Israel will make no military move that would precipitate hostilities in the area. Preemptive action by Israel would cause extreme difficulty for the United States."

And finally, he proclaims:

"The fundamental guiding principles of the U.S. are the preservation of international peace and security and the preservation of the political independence and territorial integrity of states of the Near East. We have opposed aggression from any source in the past and will continue to do so."

Just by reflecting on what is being said here, it seems to me to be clear that the administration not only was of the opinion that preemption was unnecessary, but firmly opposed any such action. No matter how the memo is interpreted, I believe it warrants further inclusion. Your thoughts? Shoplifter (talk) 15:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it's significant insofar as it demonstrates the U.S. intelligence estimate was that there was no imminent threat of attack from Egypt. (As Oren points out, the Israeli estimate matched the U.S.'s.) It is also significant insofar as it demonstrates that the U.S. was trying to convince Israel not to launch a first strike, as it eventually did. These facts should absolutely be included in the article, and this memo is a good source for that. [17] JRHammond (talk) 02:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The US intelligence estimate is an opinion that has to be attributed to a source. On the other hand, NPOV says that we can assert facts, including facts about opinions. The Secretary-General, various national leaders, and scholars say ‘There is general agreement among commentators that Nasser neither wanted nor planned to go to war with Israel’, See for example Avi Shlaim, Iron Wall, 2000, page 85. There are a number of editors here making WP:Synth claims on the basis of their own unpublished research. Neither WP:WEIGHT nor WP:ASF permit the lede or the article to misrepresent the relative prominence of opposing views.

It is also a published fact that only a small number of states considered preemptive strikes to be lawful, and that the US, France, USSR, UK, & etc. warned all of the parties that there would be consequences for the side that initiated hostilities. See for example Peace process: American diplomacy and the Arab-Israeli conflict since 1967, By William B. Quandt, Brookings Institution Press and the University of California Press; 3rd edition, 2005, ISBN 0520246314, page 404, note 43 [18]

President Johnson complained that the advice he had given Israel had been ignored. Johnson rather forcefully told Mr Eban that he thought Israel had been unwise when it went to war and that he still thought so after the war. See FRUS 1967 Crisis, pp 944–948 Document 488 [19]

President De Gaulle cut-off arms trade with Israel entirely. He released a letter to Rueters that was addressed to David Ben-Gurion on 9 January 1968. He said that he was convinced Israel had ignored his warnings and overstepped the bounds of moderation by taking possession of Jerusalem, and so much Jordanian, Egyptian, and Syrian territory by force of arms. He felt Israel had exercised repression and expulsions during the occupation and that it amounted to annexation. He said that provided Israel withdrew her forces, it appeared that it might be possible to reach a solution through the UN framework which could include assurances of a dignified and fair future for refugees and minorities in the Middle East, recognition from Israel's neighbors, and freedom of navigation through the Gulf of Aqaba and the Suez Canal. {{cite news|url=http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10C11F73C541B7B93C2A8178AD85F4C8685F9&scp=1&sq=&st=p|title=Text of de Gaulle's Answer to Letter From Ben-Gurion |publisher=Select.nytimes.com |date= 10 January 1968|accessdate=2010-03-09}}

I don't see a good reason to include Michael Orin's opinion that the extra territory Israel acquired "greatly reduced its geographic vulnerability to attack from neighboring states" in the lede. Most commentators agree that the loss of so much Arab territory and the lack of a negotiated withdrawal made another war a certainty. See for example Chapter 7, Holy Days and Holy War, October 1973; in "A Concise History of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, Bickerton and Klausner, Prentice-Hall, 4th ed, 2002, page 161. harlan (talk) 21:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Jordanian soldiers in the Government House

• The article has been repeatedly picked over by editors who wish to remove a cite presenting one account about whether or not Jordanian soldiers took control of the Government House. I am very aware of these concerns. I know, acknowledge and concur with their importance. But we can only address one issue at a time, and all edits in this regard seem to have been POV-laden. Please do be patient. Please do realize that Wikipedia is a work in progress. This article is obviously going to take months to bring into anything even vaguely resembling respectable shape (in terms of prose, NPOV, coverage of the the topic – you name it, every single aspect). Please do understand that Wikipedia is not the center of the universe. If the text temporarily reads in a manner that you do not agree with, the world will not end. Please do b patient. Please do discuss your concerns in a productive manner. Thank you. • Ling.Nut 03:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

It would suffice to mention that Jordanian troops seized the Government House compound and opened an artillery barrage as reported by the Secretary-General to the Security Council on June 5, 1967. However, you chose instead to quote a footnote out of context that three soldiers entered the building for ten minutes. This is quite misleading and makes it sound that this is the whole story. Authoritative (talk) 05:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Authoritative. It is a very important point.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

"In the interest of historical accuracy, it is to be noted that the report that Jordanian troops had "occupied" Government House was originally based on incomplete information owing to a communicaitons breakdown caused by the events in the Government House area. On the basis of a review of events and a checking with the Chief of Staff of UNTSO, it was later determined that the actual facts as regards the reported entry of Jordanian troops into Government House on 5 June 1967 were as follows: at approximately 1445 hours local time, three Jordanian soldiers entered Government House over the protest of UNTSO, but were persuaded by UNTSO staff to leave the building after about ten minutes."[20]

Kindly explain what is "out of context" about this correction from the UN's own records. Also please explain what is "misleading" about it. As the footnote explains, what is misleading was the report that Jordanian troops had "occupied" the building. And what is your basis for your claim that they "opened an artillery barrage"? You cite a report to the SG. Please provide it. JRHammond (talk) 06:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought that the following would suffice without mentioning the Secretary-General's report or the occupation of the building itself.

Jordanian troops seized the Government House compound, used as the headquarters for the UN observers in a Demilitarized zone since the 1949 Armistice Agreements and opened a heavy-artillery barrage on western Jerusalem, as well as targeting the center of the country. .

However, if you wish to add the above footnote, it would have to be quoted in context of the Secretary-General's report where it belongs as specifically marked 1/ to avoid misinformation.

At the UN Security Council meeting of June 5, 1967 Secretary-General U Thant reported that:

"at 1330 hours local time today approximately one company of Jordanian soldiers occupied the garden of the Government House.

"General Bull later informed me by an emergency message that Jordanian troops had not with-drawn and were demanding to enter Government House itself and had demanded that no telephone calls be made from Government House. Firing was continuing and mortar shells were now landing within the Government House compound. United Nations Headquarters lost radio contact with UNTSO headquarters in Jerusalem at 0852 hours New York time, at which time Jordanian troops occupied Government House1/. This also means that United Nations Headquarters has lost direct contact with headquarters UNEF, whose messages are routed through UNTSO."[21] Authoritative (talk) 13:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• The text exists – on a UN document, no less. We cannot ignore its existence. wait, here's more here. Also sourced to p. 506 of Bailey, Sydney D. (1980 ). Nonmilitary Areas in UN Practice. The American Journal of International Law Vol. 74, No. 3 (Jul., 1980), pp. 499-524, though Bailey doesn't provide his source... yes he does, in the book. He cites personal correspondence from Odd Bull... p. 96, IIRC.
• If anyone can scan the relevant pages of Odd Bull's book "War and peace in the Middle East: the experiences and views of a UN observer, Volume 1976, Part 2" and email them to me, that would be useful.. looks like it should be on pp. 115ff. • Ling.Nut 16:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

You are citing the raw reports contained in the minutes of the 5 June 1967 session of the Security Council (i.e. the Procès-verbal, PV). The footnote material was added after-the-fact for historical accuracy to state what had actually happened.

Odd Bull's story about the three soldiers is in agreement with the UN and Mr. Bailey's report. It relates that a Jordanian Major had been told over his radio to occupy the Government House and that the Major and three soldiers had entered. Odd Bull called the head of the Jordanian delegation to the Mixed Armistice Commission, Colonel M. Dahoud, and told him that if the troops were not withdrawn at once he would contact King Hussein. The Major and the soldiers left. There was a company of Jordanian soldiers in the Government House garden and they drew fire from the nearby Israeli position. Several buildings in the compound were severely damaged when they were hit by over twenty mortar shells, and the quarters used by Odd Bull and his wife caught on fire (pages 115-116). Avi Shlaim does not say the Jordanians occupied Government House, he said they captured it, but the IDF also captured Government House. It was the IDF that drove out the UN staff and their families (per Sydney Bailey, Odd Bull, et. al.).

Historycentral.com is a commercial site for MultiEducator products founded by Amy Erani and Marc Schulman. There is no information provided regarding their editorial review process, or their specific professional qualifications. The article on the Six Day War has a "History of Israel from dream to reality" banner. The article is unattributed and there is no bibliography. It appears that Amy Erani is the Director of Judaic Studies at Westchester Fairfield Hebrew Academy, National Education Director at Young Judaea, and attended Jewish Theological Seminary. I'd suggest that (at best) any unsourced information from historycentral.com be attributed as an opinion, and that we avoid linking to unlicensed unsourced commercial content in the first place. harlan (talk) 18:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

We are in agreement that Avi Shlaim does not say the Jordanians occupied Government House, he said they captured it. Neither the version "Jordanian troops seized the Government House compound" nor Secretary-General U Thant's 1967 yearbook mention anything about the building itself.

However, if you prefer to add the footnote in context, I think that there is no problem since we are in agreement that there was a company of Jordanian soldiers in the Government House garden. If you find something interesting in Odd Bull's book I would welcome it. Authoritative (talk) 20:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we are missing the big picture here. If we discuss the Jordanian actions, then NPOV tends to require that we include the published material regarding the IDF's actions. They mortared the Government House buildings, captured and occupied them, and drove-out the UN staff and their families. See Sydney Bailey's account at the link above. harlan (talk) 21:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Harlan is right. Also, Authoritative's version reads, "Jordanian troops seized the Government House compound, used as the headquarters for the UN observers in a Demilitarized zone since the 1949 Armistice Agreements and opened a heavy-artillery barrage on western Jerusalem, as well as targeting the center of the country" - this suggests the Jordanians initiated the hostilities. I see nothing from the record to indicate it wasn't equally possible or more so that Israel attacked the compound and the Jordanians responded. This should read that fighting broke out and not pin responsibility for that on one side or the other. JRHammond (talk) 01:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Unlike the current version that reads "several accounts state that Jordanian forces occupied Government House", the assertion that "Jordanian troops seized the Government House compound, used as the headquarters for the UN observers in a Demilitarized zone since the 1949 Armistice Agreements and opened a heavy-artillery barrage on western Jerusalem, as well as targeting the center of the country" is sourced and well documented.

It takes a great deal of vision and imagination to suggest "that Israel attacked the compound and the Jordanians responded." Authoritative (talk) 10:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Then it should be very simple for you to provide sources that substantiate that assertion. Please do so, or drop the claim from your version of the sentence. JRHammond (talk) 11:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The sources now cited substantiate that assertion rather than the current version. Authoritative (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC).

Sources "now cited" "rather than" "current version"? Huh? There is no substantiation for this in the article at present. You need to provide a source. JRHammond (talk) 14:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The sources are 138 and 139 as they appear in the article at present. Authoritative (talk) 14:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Fn 138 is cited for "On the evening of June 5, the Israeli cabinet convened to decide what to do; Yigal Allon and Menahem Begin argued that this was an opportunity to take the Old City of Jerusalem, but Eshkol decided to defer any decision until Moshe Dayan and Yitzhak Rabin could be consulted" -- not for your assertion that Jordanian troops "opened a heavy-artillery barrage" from the Government House.

Fn 139 reads: "After asking for 24 hours to think about it, Jordanian troops opened a heavy-artillery barrage on western Jerusalem, as well as targeting the center of the country. In addition, Jordanian troops seized government houses and the headquarters of the U.N. in Jerusalem." This does not support your assertion that the barrage was launched from the Government House. In fact, it's quite clear two incidents are being referenced here. You confuse them.

If you want to insert this claim into the article, you need to provide a source. You have offered none. JRHammond (talk) 02:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

It has been revised to separate the two incidents accordingly. Authoritative (talk) 04:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

OK. JRHammond (talk) 06:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

main point versus supporting detail: Israel declined UNEF

• I have spent a great deal of time tracking down cites about Israel refusing UN troops. Please listen carefully to what I say:

• Everyone – whether Pro-Israel, pro-Arab, neutral; whether major source or minor source; doesn't matter – everyone mentions Nasser's request/demand that UNEF troops be withdrawn from Egypt.
• The point about Israel refusing a re-request by Thant is very seldom mentioned, and:

• When it is mentioned, it is never a main point, but always a supporting detail (aside perhaps in Finkelstein; I haven't seen his text)
• When it is mentioned, it is always in the context of an Arab viewpoint, criticizing Israel (I found, for example, some comments by quotes by Quincy Wright and Michael Barton Akehurst).

• Oren does not spend pages discussing it, as has been stated. I cannot see p. 72, but I can see the following pages, and they are not about that. He treats it as a detail, not a major fact. That is probably to be expected, as he is a pro-Israel biased source.
• Finkelstein is the prototype of a biased pro-Arab source.

• For these reasons, it seems to me that the conclusion cannot be avoided: this point is a supporting detail in arguments from an Arab perspective. It is never dealt with as a main point. By the simple logic of composition studies (main points in introduction; supporting points in body) this point does not belong in the lead.
• It certainly DOES belong in an appropriate subsection that lays out the Arab perspective.
• I am removing it from the sandbox version.
• Some editors may be tempted to use logical arguments to support the assertion that it must be left in the lead. Absolutely no one on this page seems to realize (please do pay attention):

• Our logical arguments = our analysis = original research.
• To repeat: Logic-based arguments for or against inclusion of text in the WP:LEAD are original research. Analysis of source texts is the only proper procedure.

• I'm gonna move the sandbox lead into the article very soon. I fear some editors may edit war to insist that that point be reinserted in the lead. Please refrain from doing so.
• Thanks. • Ling.Nut 03:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Great analysis and the right decision! Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the sentence could be dropped from the lead. However, the claims that "When it is mentioned, it is always in the context of an Arab viewpoint, criticizing Israel" and "It is never dealt with as a main point." are wrong. Tom Segev in his book "1967" devotes a paragraph on page 274 for this subject. Segev does not mention this as part of the Arab view-point. --Frederico1234 (talk) 06:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Given your characterization of Finkelstein, I think it's fair that we look at what he actually writes about the UNEF issue. Here's the relevant excerpt from Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict, Verso Books, 2003:

"U Thant also proposed that Israel allow the UNEF to be repositioned on its side of the border. Indeed, the Secretary-General pointedly recalled that the original February 1957 General Assembly resolution mandating deployment of the UNEF 'envisaged' that it would be stationed on 'both sides' of the Egyptian-Israeli armistice demarcation line. (Egypt had acceeded to the General Assembly request; Israel had not. U Thant also noted that, in the course of the decade that had since elapsed, Israeli troops 'regularly patrolled alongside the line and now and again created provocations by violating it'.) But Israel dismissed as 'entirely unacceptable' U Thant's recommendation. Repeated entreaties by the United States, Britain and especially Canada all fell on deaf ears. Even an alternative proposal at the end of May to reactivate UNEF on both sides of the Egyptian-Israeli frontier and along the Gaza strip was peremptorily dismissed by Israel." (p. 128)

"In his memoir, U Thant conjectured that 'if only Israel had agreed to permit UNEF to be stationed on its side of the border, even for a short duration, the course of history could have been different. Diplomatic efforts to avert the pending catastrophe might have prevailed; war might have been averted.' His speculation received an authoritative endorsement from Odd Bull, who stated that 'it is quite possible that the 1967 war could have been avoided' had Israel acceeded to the Secretary-General's request." (continued on p. 128)

As far as I can tell, he simply relates the view of Thant and Bull to explain what happened, and he does so in less than one page. Shoplifter (talk) 07:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• All of which still supports my conclusion, I believe... • Ling.Nut

Well, you might be able to find other writings which support your description of Finkelstein, but it seems to me that UNEF issue is not one of those. I don't owe a copy of either Segev's or Oren's books, but it would be interesting to juxtapose their depiction of events with Finkelstein's. Before I added the extensive documentation of the US intelligence assessment, this was described by one line in the article, which, I believe, stemmed from Oren: "The Americans said their intelligence sources could not corroborate the Israeli claim; the Egyptian positions in the Sinai remained defensive." [22] That is, shall we say, quite a black-out of the documentary record. If Oren treats it as a detail, what does he actually write about it? Does he mention Thant's and Bull's views? Same thing goes for Segev. Shoplifter (talk) 07:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you arguing for reinsertion of the UNEF bit, or arguing that Finkelstein isn't POV? If the latter, then fine, I've struck through my remarks above. • Ling.Nut 07:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we should evaluate the source material mainly on the basis of documentation, not solely on whom and how many scholars deals with an issue. If Thant and Bull were of the view that the restationing of the UNEF could have prevented war, this, it seems to me, is a major point which deserves to be mentioned in the lead. Whether or not Finkelstein is POV is, I believe, not relevant to this particular question; can his assertions be corroborated (for example, by looking at the quoted sources)? I concede that this is an issue to be argued among editors, whether the UNEF restationing attempts warrants inclusion. But I think your quantitative view of the source material is problematic. Shoplifter (talk) 07:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

(1) It does not follow from the fact that Israel's refusal to station UNEF on its side isn't mentioned as often as Egypt's dismissal of the force that it is not significant. (2) Oren lends the fact significance, as do other writers, such as Finkelstein. (3) Your argument that "Finkelstein is the prototype of a biased pro-Arab source" is an ad hominem argument. Moreover, even if we accepted this argument, we would also have to accept the converse, that Oren is the prototype of a biased pro-Israeli source. But this only demonstrates the point: Two prominent sources writing from two opposing viewpoints both lend this fact significance. (4) Your argument that we can't use LOGIC to argue for its inclusion is illogical. (5) "If Thant and Bull were of the view that the restationing of the UNEF could have prevented war, this, it seems to me, is a major point which deserves to be mentioned in the lead." Shoplifer hit the nail on the head with this remark. JRHammond (talk) 12:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• As always, many comments. I hope I can explain things a bit more. I want to say.. if I start babbling about things that you already know, or that seem painfully obvious, please forgive me. It's not that I think you don't know anything. It's that I don't know what you know and don't know, and so I have to say everything that seems relevant.
• The fact that U Thant said that might make it seem prominent, given his office at the time. Well, in reality, perhaps it does, and perhaps it doesn't. This has everything to do with what Shoplifter called a "quantitative view of the source material." It isn't... really... a quantitative view. I know it might seem that way, and in fact in an extremely surface sense it kinda is that way, but in a deeper sense it isn't. The model that best explains academic writing is an extended conversation among many participants. That's true even for the white coat guys who write abstruse mathematical on the back of their shopping list; they're still just all having a conversation with one another, in print. The way to drive to the heart of the matter is to ask these questions:

1. What are most people saying on the topic (which seems like bean counting)
2. If some people are discussing more than one point (for example, comparing two positions), then how much weight do they give the various positions
3. Who are most people quoting on the topic.

• The third one is relevant here. So if U Thant did say that (I'm not disputing it; I haven't looked yet) then what matters is, do many people quote him on it? If not, then you begin to think that perhaps most analysts don't lend much weight to his views (or to put it bluntly to the point of being rude, they don't respect his opinions). In fact, and I am very far from an expert here, but I've seen a couple quotes that kinda questioned U Thant's judgment, and not yet any that supported it. But I am not staking out a position that he should not be heard. I'm abstractly discussing the possibility that that's the case.
• And going back to the conversation metaphor, you have to step back and listen to the whole buzz of voices, getting a feel for some relative proportions in the general din, before you can start to get an idea about the credibility that various ideas have in the wider arena of discussion.
• OK. Now, the fact that Oren and Finkelstein mention Israel's "Just Say No To UNEF" position doesn't automatically lend it weight, either. You're talking about an entire book. Moreover, these books are probably trying to achieve some measure of comprehensiveness in their analysis. With those two things in mind, it would be extremely salient if they didn't at least mention U Thant's comments. Alarm bells would go off in the minds of underpaid professors across the world. If experts write books on the topic that are supposed to be comprehensive, and they do not mention U Thant's remarks, then they are either deliberately eliding something that contradicts their POV, or they completely disregard U Thant's opinions (which might also be a sign of POV, but might not – especially if they've offered up some commentary or quotes that calls his credibility into question), or else they just sorta didn't do their job very well, at least in that instance. So to protect their cherished scholarly reputations, both of them REALLY SHOULD mention it. The mere fact that they mentioned it is not really significant, in itself. So, if something is mentioned, what do we make of it? We see how much time they spend discussing it. We see how many other cites they provide that support or concur with U Thant's positions. We try to get a sense of proportion.
• In this particular case, we've established that both Oren and Finkelstein spend less than a page (perhaps much less than a page, I don't know) discussing this idea. To be honest, after typing all this, I can't quite remember what the quotes above (provided by Shoplifter/JRHammond) actually say. ;-) Sorry! But do they feel the point merits the effort to mention other sources who say the same thing? Do they hit the point with a big hammer, talking at length, or do they just kinda mention it on their way to the coffee machine?
• These are the things we need to be looking at. Can we find others who quote U Thant on this, for example?
• Sorry so long-winded. • Ling.Nut 14:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

"Can we find others who quote U Thant on this, for example?". Segev. See my comment above (easy to miss in the jungle of comments!).

(1) That Israel refused to have UNEF restationed on its side of the border is an uncontroversial fact. Nobody is refuting that. It is a significant fact. (2) Sources lend significance to that fact. For example,

(a) U Thant viewed it as a solution to the situation.

(b) Oren spends 7 pages (67-75) discussing the removal of UNEF, and in that discussion notes that Israel rejected U Thant's proposal. Oren's discussion is essentially an argument that the removal of UNEF threatened peace, and he states that Israel's reason for rejecting the force was that it "would be less likely to stop Egyptian aggression than to limit Israel's response to it."

(c) Finkelstein answered Oren by noting "Oren doesn't offer a jot of evidence to support this allegation (there isn't any), but acknowledges earlier that 'the mere presence of UNEF had sufficed to deter warfare during periods of intense Arab-Israeli friction, to keep infiltrators from exiting Gaza and ensure free passage through the Straits of Tiran' (p.67). In addition, he repeatedly suggests that Nasser's decision to remove UNEF (as well as U Thant's acquiescence in it) put the Egyptian leader in a position to 'threaten' peace (pp. 67). It is hard to understand, however, why stationing UNEF on the Egyptian side of the border preserved peace while stationing it on the Israeli side would not have or, put otherwise, why UNEF would deter Egyptian aggression on the Egyptian but not on the Israeli side."

(3) The major significance is self-evident.

(a) As Shoplifter noted, "If Thant and Bull were of the view that the restationing of the UNEF could have prevented war, this, it seems to me, is a major point which deserves to be mentioned in the lead."

(b) It's not only about what U.N. officials thought, it's about what is logically self-evident. As Phersu rightly noted, "If Egypt's expulsion of the UNEF from its side of the border is significant, then surely Israel's refusal to reposition the UNEF on its side of the border is also significant."

(4) It currently stands, as far as I can tell, 3 in favor of including the fact in the lead (JRHammond, Phersu, Shoplifter) and 2 in favor of omitting it (Ling.Nut, Frederico1234). (5) The argument I see opposed is that the fact isn't significant enough to mention. So please answer me these two simple questions:

(a) If it is significant that Egypt expelled UNEF from its side of the border, why is this significant?

(b) In what way does that significance not also apply equally to Israel's similar rejection of the proposal to have UNEF on its side of the border?

Again, the significance is self-evident. But we don't need to rely on ourselves being individuals capable of independent, rational thought. That significance is evidenced by U Thant's view that it was a solution to the crisis, by Oren's effort to downplay the fact, and by Finkelstein's response to Oren explicitly noting the self-evident significance, among other sources.

There is absolutely no legitimate reason to OMIT this crucial fact from the lead, whatsoever. JRHammond (talk) 03:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• JR, your arguments don't go where you believe they do..
• Moreover, you are merely banging your shoe on the table (again and again) and repeating the same assertions (again and again). Your persistence in the face of persuasive arguments that you are incorrect absolutely forces me to say several things that I truly do not want to say.

1. Oren spends page after page discussing Egypt throwing out UNEF; he dismisses U Thant with a cursory paragraph or two. I dunno why you think this makes U Thant's remarks important to oren; the converse is self-evidently the case.
2. You keep banging your shoe on the table and asking me to answer your logic. In fact, User:Authoritative has already answered that logic repeatedly, and I did not join in his/her (self-evidently correct) assertions because I disregard our own logic as a motivation for including text. I only believe the article should follow sources; where sources emphasize a fact, our article should reflect that emphasis, and (extremely relevant here), where sources deemphasize a fact, our text should do likewise. But User:Authoritative has already answered your logic repeatedly: even if Israel had permitted UNEF troops inside its borders, that would still have left the Straits blocked. No solution that left the Straits blocked would have delayed the war; U Thant was flatly, wholly wrong. It's even a jaw-dropping error. Source after source after source after source after source says [here I take great liberties as I paraphrase] "Israel looked at the closure of the Straits and said 'Gulp! We can't live like this. We can't live hunkered down, in defensive mode, etc. We can't live barricaded in. We must attack.'" I am NOT saying that I agree with that position by Israel, I am NOT saying "It really was a defensive/preemptive/whatever war." I am saying that Israel believed that, and Israel acted upon that belief, and Israel would not have failed to act, given any solution or under any conditions that left the Straits closed to them. I regret that you closed your ears to my arguments that work strictly from the sources. I am sorry to resort to "pointing out the obvious", which is very distasteful to me. I would rather work from sources; it is an NPOV approach. Using "our logic" is a welcome mat for POV-based arguing. In fact, it is not only a welcome mat, it is always and everywhere a hallmark, and even a necessary pre-condition for POV arguing. I am saddened that I was forced to fall back to this position.
3. You don't seem to understand the nature of WP:CONSENSUS. It is not a a vote in which "3 to 2 means 3 wins". Neither is it suicide pact that sanctions an end-run around sources. • Ling.Nut 20:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

You say I'm "incorrect", but don't point to where I made any error in fact or logic and otherwise don't substantively address my points, which I would reiterate. You say Authoritiative answered my logic. Where? As for your own logic, you make the following arguments:

(1) "[E]ven if Israel had permitted UNEF troops inside its borders, that would still have left the Straits blocked". So therefore the fact should be omitted? This is a non sequitur.

(2) "No solution that left the Straits blocked would have delayed the war; U Thant was flatly, wholly wrong." That is your own judgment, and thus irrelevant.

(3) "I regret that you closed your ears to my arguments that work strictly from the sources." False premise.

(4) "I would rather work from sources; it is an NPOV approach. Using "our logic" is a welcome mat for POV-based arguing." I am working from sources. Sources note the fact and lend it significance in doing so. The NPOV approach is to be neutral (duh). To be neutral, the article must note that Israel also rejected UNEF.

(5) "It is not a a vote in which "3 to 2 means 3 wins"." Nevertheless, more people agree with me than with you. Yet you seem to think that you have the final say in the matter. You do not.

What is the problem with noting this fact in the article, really? Your arguments against it fall flat on their face. Also, you did not answer my two simple questions. Please do so:

(a) If it is significant that Egypt expelled UNEF from its side of the border, why is this significant?

(b) In what way does that significance not also apply equally to Israel's similar rejection of the proposal to have UNEF on its side of the border? JRHammond (talk) 01:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• It's significant that Egypt expelled UNEF from its side of the border because every single source under the sun discusses it, and usually at length. Why they discuss it in that manner is a query you'll need to resolve by reading those sources.
• By precisely the same token, U Thant's last-minute gesture is not significant enough to go in the WP:LEAD because it is NOT mentioned even a fraction of the number of times. When it is mentioned, it is typically granted a whole two paragraphs in a comprehensive book hundreds of pages long.
• I never said we shouldn't put it in the article; I said we shouldn't put it in the WP:LEAD. Why not? Because then Wikipedia would be foregrounding a fact that every else relegates to background info. But it can certainly go in the body of the article. • Ling.Nut 01:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

There's no sense wasting time debating this anymore. It's a non-issue at this point. My comments were based on previous versions that emphasized the UNEF withdrawal. The current version, however, de-emphasizes the withdrawal of UNEF altogether. See my comment below, and the new section I started, also. JRHammond (talk) 03:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed that the current version has changed and the only place this is even mentioned is this phrase, "after UNEF withdrew at his request". This was emphasized much more in previous versions. Given the de-emphasis of this point in the current lede, I'm fine with also de-emphasizing (that is, omitting) the fact that Israel also rejected UNEF. It absolutely must be mentioned in the body. I trust that is agreeable to everybody. JRHammond (talk) 01:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Starting new sandbox phase

• For those who may be just logging in, I created another important section above, including one very important generality about the use of our own logic in these discussions.
• I'm thinking the "among other things" in the lead can be replaced with a well-cited phrase (no more than a few words) mentioning US/Soviet involvement, but I am not gonna do it, at least not today. Maybe later, unless someone else does it first. P Lease cite very well if you do.
• I'm starting another phase of this article in my sandbox: the all-important "causes of the war". I have repeatedly outline the "compartmentalized" approach I favor, though I know that getting this done in a coherent manner may be a formidable task. Given how long it took us to do the lead, I expect this new task may take 6 weeks or 2 months.... All comments invited. • Ling.Nut 07:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

What to do about the notes [23] without refs? Shoplifter (talk) 08:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh. you know, about that big heap of quotes... I respect J-guy's passion and hard work on this matter. However, to keep the article as clear as possible, we need to sift and weigh those quotes, and offer only the best ones, and put them in the best position. That will take a nontrivial amount of time. To be honest, it's a task that's kinda low on my priority list, even though I know they're a little distracting... • Ling.Nut 14:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Six-Day War in other articles, the preemption issue

I've written on the importance of making other articles comport with the consensus lede. Since a decision has been reached and implemented, the consensus should be reflected in the following articles, and others that deal with the issue:

Preemptive war, specifically Preemptive_war#Examples

History of the Arab-Israeli conflict, specifically History_of_the_Arab-Israeli_conflict#War_of_1967

Arab-Israeli conflict, specifically Arab-Israeli_conflict#1949.E2.80.931967

Israeli-Palestinian_conflict_timeline, specifically Israeli-Palestinian_conflict_timeline#Six-Day_War

Occupation of the Gaza Strip by Egypt, specifically Occupation_of_the_Gaza_Strip_by_Egypt#Six_Day_War

All of the above descriptions of the war are written from the Israeli viewpoint and describes it as preemptive without reservation. Shoplifter (talk) 09:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

First of all, don't even look in my general direction. As I've said, just this article alone may take months. Second, "Here there be dragons." beware. Do you really wanna spend the time and energy fighting edit wars across a related suite of articles? And with that in mind, which article is the most important? Things you should think about. • Ling.Nut 14:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know what you're saying. But if we reach a consensus in the subject article, what would, principally, stand in the way of implementing this conclusion in all articles that deal with the same issue? I've changed the wording in Preemptive war to be closer to the consensus. If others do the same thing, and then, if warring starts, at least we can centre the discussion to this talk page. It just doesn't seem right, after months of exhaustive discussion and bargaining, that the result reached will be ignored in all other relevant articles. This becomes more alarming when many of those articles are flagrantly biased (if we are to consider our consensus to be more neutral). Take the description in Arab-Israeli conflict:

On May 30, 1967, Jordan signed a mutual defense pact with Egypt. Egypt mobilized Sinai units, crossing UN lines (after having expelled the UN border monitors) and mobilized and massed on Israel's southern border. Likewise, armies in Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan also mobilized, encircling Israel. In response, on June 5 Israel sent almost all of its planes on a preemptive mission into Egypt. The Israeli Air Force (IAF) destroyed most of the Egyptian Air Force in a surprise attack, then turned east to destroy the Jordanian, Syrian and Iraqi air forces.[citation needed] This strike was the crucial element in Israel's victory in the Six-Day War.

WP:NPOV, WP:Weight, and so on? Who ever heard of a "preemptive mission"? Sounds like Jehova himself sent those planes. This is not a good situation. Shoplifter (talk) 15:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Syria-Egypt defence (or defense) pact (or agreement)

• An editor {{fact}} tagged the date of the Syria-Egypt defence (or defense) pact (or agreement)... Some sources say 4 November; others say 7 November. It's only three days apart, but still.. Cohen 1988 is where I got 4 November, but if you go to google books, both dates seem nearly equally represented (but I think7 Nov. may have the edge in the quality of the sources...) Can anyone track down better sources? I might be kinda busy today. Tks. • Ling.Nut 01:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Just say "early November" then. nableezy - 01:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Just a few remaining problems with the lede

Most of the issues/objections I've had with the lede have been addressed. One has not, and two new ones have appeared since last I looked:

• "The Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories (including disputed portions of the West Bank), plus the concurrent refugee problem, are central issues of the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict, with far-reaching implications for global affairs and international law."

a) The parenthetical must be removed. There are no "disputed portions of the West Bank". All of the West Bank east of the green line is undisputed Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem. This is not a matter for opinion, but a point in fact under international law, reflected in numerous UNSC resolutions, as well as the judgment of the International Court of Justice. All of the West Bank beyond the '49 armistice ("green") line (including Jerusalem) is occupied territory. This is an uncontroversial point of fact under international law.

b) Also, the outcome of the war has no implications for international law. International law has implications for the outcome of the war (such as the one just noted). The wording needs to be revised to correct this point in fact, or removed. Suggest removal.

• "The war established Israel as the premier military power in the region, and greatly reduced its geographic vulnerability to attack from neighboring states.[15]"

c) The second clause is a judgment, not a fact, and should therefore be removed or a caveat added to note this fact. Moreover, the footnote cites Oren, p. 107. On that page, Oren discusses a discussion Rusk had with Eban. There is no discussion of the consequences of the war decreasing Israel's vulnerability to attack. Suggest removal. JRHammond (talk) 02:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• I can change the word "disputed" to "Israeli-disputed" or "disputed by Israel" if that seems better. I included it because the Israelis do dispute it. [Note: I changed it].
• I moved the "defensive borders" sentence way, way in the bottom of the lede because you objected to it so often, but I don't think it can be removed. First, I can find far better refs for the "defensive borders" phrase, and I will, in time. [Note: I fixed the Oren ref to read p. 307... thanks]. Second, from the Israeli POV, it is a significant outcome of the war. We give the Arab side full coverage, and even foreground it. Do you want the Israeli perspective to disappear? Third, it is geographically true that the Israeli vulnerability to Arab artillery was reduced. Fourth, it is not such a sweeping implication of Arab hostility as you imagine. It is more likely to be interpreted as Israeli defensiveness.
• As for "implications for international law" you're technically correct, but I think you're kinda splitting semantic hairs. I don't think readers will mentally access the interpretation that the war will change international law; I think they will assume that the outcome of the war raised many issues in international law. Click the wikilink to that phrase to see International law and the Arab–Israeli conflict... I can try to come up with a better wording, but any other wording will almost certainly be more clumsy.• Ling.Nut 02:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

a) I strongly disapprove of the parenthetical as it now reads: "including portions of the West Bank disputed by Israel". This does not resolve the issue. If you're going to state Israel's POV, then to comply with WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT, you have to state the POV of virtually the entire rest of the world that all of the West Bank, including Jerusalem, is occupied territory. Moreover, as I've already observed, this is not really a question of points of view -- it's an uncontroversial point of fact under international law that all of the West Bank, including Jerusalem, is occupied territory. I therefore again suggest removal of the parenthetical. Otherwise, the inclusion of the Israeli POV should be accompanied with the inclusion of this point in fact.

b) You didn't address this problem. It is not "splitting semantic hairs". Wikipedia articles should say what they mean, and not depend upon readers to be able to conclude that a sentence doesn't actually mean what it states explicitly. The wording must be changed so that it means what it says. I should hardly have to argue that point. I suggest removal. If you insist international law be mentioned here, why? What is the point you are trying to make? If not that the consequences of the war had implications for international law (which is what it actually says), then what? If there's a point, just revise the wording to make that point, instead of having it in fact make a point that you're not trying to make and thus making the readers have to guess at your intended meaning and draw conclusions opposite from the logical corollary of the actual wording. Suggest removal, or revision to include the point of fact that under international law all of the West Bank, including Jerusalem, is occupied territory.

c) You haven't substantively addressed my concerns on this point. Until sources are found (and the current source is in need of correction), it should not be included. If/When sources are provided (again, none currently are), then it needs to be expressed not as a fact, but, as you here acknowledge, as being from "Israeli POV". Surely you must agree that expressing what you acknowledge as "Israeli POV" as fact is a blatant violation of WP:NPOV. So just add that caveat to the sentence. Or remove it. Either solution is agreeable to me. JRHammond (talk) 03:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• I used the words "Israeli occupation", if I recall correctly, and wikilinked it. If i say something is occupied by Israel, doesn't that mean it's occupied? Irael's disputes are relegated to parenthetical status. 'Nuff said.
• I have improved the references, thanks for pointing that out.
• International law -- must be raised as a sub-issue. Did you ever read the linked article? Its first sentence corresponds to Arab POV (and may also reflect international opinion; I am not a lawyer).
• Crucially: I think you misunderstand the intention of WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. Intuitively, the main goal is this: A person reading the article should not know what POV the editors are writing from, or should not get the feeling that the editors are consistently writing from any particular POV. That is emphatically not the same as saying that no POV statements are ever included. That would, of course, be completely impossible; particularly in an article such as this, nearly ever statement has POV implications. Saying that a sentence is "Israeli POV" is most certainly not a violation of WP:NPOV. Have you read WP:NPOV? • Ling.Nut 04:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

a) Israel's "disputes", which is to say, it's attempts to effectively annex portions of the West Bank, have precisely zero legitimacy. Thus, it does not warrant even a parenthetical. Again, it's question of point of fact, not point of view. And the fact is that it is completely uncontroversial that under international law all of the West Bank, including Jerusalem, are occupied territory. (Side note: Jiujitsuguy edited this sentence to read non-NPOV. I reverted it back to your version. In doing so, I left the parenthetical, even though I strongly object to it, as a show of good faith). If other editors favor your inclusion of this, I'll go along with it, but I don't see the point of including it. Would like other editors to comment, state their own position on this.

b) I did not read the linked article, but I -- like other readers -- shouldn't have to. This article should stand on its own. If you argue international law "must be raised as a sub-issue", then why do you wish to include it in this sentence? Like I said, it's fine to include it, but the wording should be revised to it means what it says, rather than having it say something you don't intend it to mean. My suggestion is to just remove it, so I don't have suggestions on re-wording. I'm open to others make them, including yourself, if you wish to.

c) Issue remains that this is a judgment is expressed as fact. Moreover, if we are to include this judgment, citing Oren as source, we should also include Oren's judgment that "the Jewish state now threatened Damascus, Cairo, and Amman". That would make the sentence read more neutrally. On WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT, we are on the same page, I assure you. I refer to those policies in precisely the sense you describe. You point out "Saying that a sentence is "Israeli POV" is most certainly not a violation of WP:NPOV." No kidding. That was entirely my own point. If you want this to comply with WP:NPOV, an Israeli POV MUST BE EXPRESSED AS AN ISRAELI POV (as opposed to expressing Israeli POV as a fact, which violates WP:NPOV). Since you clearly agree with me on that, I look forward to your making the requisite change to the sentence to include that caveat. Or give the word, and I'll do so myself. JRHammond (talk) 05:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• No. Qualification of each phrase with "According to Arabs" and "according to Israelis" would not only be distracting and just plain ugly, it would appear obsessive. Even the most naive reader imaginable is going to enter this text with some appreciation of the fact that the Arabs and Israelis have fought a bunch of wars against each other, and that their views are categorically opposed on many issues. No one will be so naive that they read any sentence or phrase as gospel truth. What we need to safeguard, then, is the overall impression, not each phrase point by point. Again, no. • Ling.Nut 05:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Ling.Nut, please substantively address my points. Your argument does not do so, but rather is effectively that stating a POV as fact is acceptable. That is not acceptable, and this argument is nonsense. POVs must be expressed as POVs, not as fact. That's a perfectly elementary observation with a view to WP:NPOV. JRHammond (talk) 05:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

a) Israel's "disputes"...have precisely zero legitimacy.

Whether or not they are legitimate, they are notable. Notability is the threshold for inclusion, not truth. See WP:5P.

b) I did not read the linked article, but I -- like other readers -- shouldn't have to. This article should stand on its own.

Wikipedia does not function that way. Most people don't give a flying monkey's proboscis about international law. However, the ones that do are provided with a pretty blue link that directs them to the page where the specifics of that topic are unpacked. That's just the way it is. Unpacking the specifics of this point, and every other one, would involve importing the text of roughly a dozen or so other articles into this one. Conversely, deleting all the pretty blue links because the ideas are not fully unpacked would deprive interested readers of one-click access to the topic they wish to read about.

c) Issue remains that this is a judgment is expressed as fact. Moreover, if we are to include this judgment, citing Oren as source, we should also include Oren's judgment that "the Jewish state now threatened Damascus, Cairo, and Amman".

The fact that the expansion moved Arab artillery back is not an opinion, it is a fact. The fact that it provided Israel with better defensive depth is also a military fact. It is actually NOT POV to assert that Israel needed to be defensive. They were attacked in '48. Far closer to the time frame at hand, the rhetoric at the time (and now, I suppose) from many states was "destroy Israel now". Nasser was (from the Israeli POV, at least; others may have interpreted it as mere bluster) breathing fire and calling down the wrath of God on them up until the war began. His warlike rhetoric is cited in many sources; would you like me to insert it in the lead immediately preceding the "defensive" phrase?? That should address your concerns that the text is not motivated by any real aggressiveness on the Arab side... An additional source is cited, and I plan to find even more. • Ling.Nut 06:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for replying more substantively. My replies:

(a) Understood. But WP:WEIGHT must also be considered, which policy states that "generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all". I object to this being in the lede on that basis. It might perhaps be appropriately mentioned in the body, with an accompanying explanation that it's a point of fact under international law that none of the West Bank is "disputed" territory. It is all occupied Palestinian territory, including Jerusalem. This is uncontroversial, so I see no reason for objection to this proposed solution.

(b) Fine, so like I said, leave the reference to international law. But revise the sentence to state what you mean, rather than stating something you clearly don't mean. It's your sentence, and your insistence the link remain, so I'll leave it to you to reword it more appropriately. Again, as is, it states that the war has "far reaching implications" for "international law". That's simply not true; the converse is -- as you've already acknowledged. So just fix it to say what you mean it to say. Simple solution.

(c) (i) Strawman. I never argued that Arab artillery wasn't forced back with Israel's capture of territory. See my actual argument, which I won't repeat. (ii) Your assertion of Israel being "attacked" in '48 is mischaracterization of what actually occurred. In '48, the Zionists unilaterally claimed for themselves the existence of a "Jewish state" in Palestine without specifying borders. At the time, Jews (the minority) owned 7% of the land, Arabs (the majority) 85%. In order to prevent this disenfranchisement of the majority population and to counter the Zionist prejudice towards the rights of the Arab inhabitants of the land, the Arab nations took up arms. This was not an "attack", but an act of self-defense against Zionist aggression and intent to take by force what was not theirs. This is further demonstrated in the fact that the Zionists ethnically cleansed more than 700,000 Arabs from the land they took by force, and in the fact that by far most of the fighting occurred on Arab soil. (iii) What's the problem with pointing out, if you're going to assert Israel's capture of land reduced it's geographic vulnerability to attack, that it also meant Israel was in a better position to launch attacks against its neighbors? These two judgments go hand-in-hand. Noting the one while omitting the other would seem to me to violate NPOV. This is a double-sided coin. That fact should be reflected in the wording of the sentence, or the sentence removed. Simple solution. JRHammond (talk) 08:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

To reiterate and clarify on point (c), to assert that Israel's capture of land "reduced its vulnerability to attack" without noting that the converse is also true that it made Israel's Arab neighbor states MORE vulnerable to attack is non-NPOV. This point is driven home even more strongly in the fact that this ostensible reduction in Israel's "vulnerability to attack" CONSISTED of illegally occupying foreign soil. Moreover, this is a judgment expressed as a fact. If it is to be included, it should at the very least be noted as such, rather than asserted as a fact. For instance, an opposing judgment is that Israel's occupation has INCREASED its vulnerability to attack, since it is such an enormous cause for grievance. All I'm asking is for a judgment to be expressed as such, rather than stated as fact, and for a statement from Israeli POV to be expressed as such. WP:NPOV certainly demands such. JRHammond (talk) 08:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• I altered the "law" bit, making it longer and decidedly clumsier, and adding no information that would not have automatically been surmised anyhow. However, I hope it meets with your satisfaction
• You are turning cold, hard facts regarding terrain into a question of aggressive intent. Perhaps you simply do not understand the geography? Before the war, Israel had no defensible natural borders, and its cities were within artillery range of its neighbors. After the war, Israel had a far better geostrategic position, defensible natural borders, etc. Cold, hard facts. No human factors of "who is the aggressor" involved.... NOTE: I changed the wording to "providing it with defensible natural borders." This removes the explicit mention of attack from its neighbors. Now.. I know.. you will say the borders are not legal borders. Fine. make that point in the body text; Wikipedia is not a legal document and cannot address every fine legal point ... especially not in the lead section of an article...• Ling.Nut 12:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

(a) See Shoplifter's solution below.

(b) I'm satisfied with "The Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories (including portions of the West Bank disputed by Israel), plus the concurrent refugee problem, are central concerns in the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict, raising issues in international law, and having far-reaching consequences in global affairs."

(c) Your argument for "The war established Israel as the premier military power in the region, and provided it with defensible natural borders" begins with "You are turning cold, hard facts regarding terrain into a question of aggressive intent." That is where your argument breaks down. To state that Israel's conquest of territory gave it "defensible natural borders" itself raises the question of aggressive intent, and projects that aggressive intent onto Israel's neighbors. Also, my point remains that this express Israel's POV insofar as security is concerned. But what about the security of the Palestinians who now lived under Israeli occupation? What about the fact, as Oren points out in his very next breath after suggesting Israel was "vulnerable" prior to the war, that this capture of territory put Israel in a better position to attack its neighbors? What about those POVs, equally relevant, equally valid? How can you state the one without noting the others? Conversely, if you refuse to note the other consequences from those other POVs, how can you include the one? WP:NPOV is at issue here. JRHammond (talk) 14:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Progress paralyzed. Nickel-and-dimed into paralysis

• Folks. Please. Please. Please. Get this through your heads. Please. Please. The text will never be perfect, and in particular, it is physically impossible for it to be perfect in the minds of both POV camps simultaneously. The lead as I had it is NPOV. It is thoroughly and soundly NPOV. It is even sparkling NPOV. Aside from JR's need to improve the refs (which was reasonable and good), the objections and alterations being made will cause this article to sit in its present state until it rots, with each side changing two words per day, unless everyone gets this through their heads: it is physically impossible for it to be perfect in the minds of both POV camps simultaneously. Please stop. • Ling.Nut 04:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

You'll observe that when I undid Jiujitsuguy's undoing of your wording, I restored your version fully, despite my objection to it, since it's currently under discussion. That is a clear demonstration of my good faith. For my part, my objections/suggested improvements are perfectly reasonable. Please stop telling us to stop trying to improve the article. That is what we are all here to do. You do not have the final say in the matter. I've stated my case. I welcome other editors to read all arguments and state their approval/disapproval of suggested changes. That is the process. You're trying to stifle that process, which is totally unreasonable. JRHammond (talk) 05:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I welcome progress on the article's current, substandard state. I never suggested that you or any other editor is deliberately being obstructionist. Rather, I think a number of people involved here have no appreciation for the fact that the article can never fit anyone's views perfectly... and trying to make it do so will merely result in stagnation, since other parties will attempt to assert their views by replacing yours. Attempts to achieve perfection always and everywhere achieve only the continuation of the ping pong match – no more, no less. I for one find ping pong supremely boring. • Ling.Nut 05:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

"I welcome progress on the article's current, substandard state." Great. Glad we are in agreement. So let's get back to it. JRHammond (talk) 07:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

"Judea and Samria" and other "disputed" words

There is a very specific set of circumstances in which the terms Judea or Samaria should be used on Wikipedia, see here. None of these circumstances apply here. Those naming conventions were put together as a result of an arbitration case in which a number of editors were indefinitely banned from the topic area. Further, Jiujitsuguy's edit removes "occupied" and "disputed by Israel" and replaces that with a simple "disputed". It is a super-majority view that the West Bank is under Israeli occupation, a view that even the Israeli High Court shares. nableezy - 05:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit and especially for citing the case... I wasn't aware of that. I think we're trying to work on this. Thanks again. • Ling.Nut 05:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Nableezy. Notice Jiujitsuguy undid my undoing of his undoing without discussion. He has repeatedly demonstrated poor faith. It would be nice if he continues to refuse to discuss his objections/suggested revisions and continually undoes discussed and approved versions admins would ban him, so this problem of edit warring doesn't persist. Simple problem. Simple solution. JRHammond (talk) 05:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Re-emphasized Warnings

After a lot of progress some have resorted to reverting for various viewpoints they are holding on to. This resulted in several additions, reverts and reverts back. Again, we can't have edit warring on this subject matter. Accordingly I have gone back to Ling Nut's last edit as he is heading up the effort to build consensus on changes to this article. I have also escalated revision protection to Level 2 for this article which means revisions will need the approval of a Reviewer or and Admin in order to go into effect. --WGFinley (talk) 06:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed that some participants may have reviewer status, as that's the case this article is now under a 1RR for the next week. --WGFinley (talk) 06:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, WGFinley. But that said and done, I would urge that leeway should be given to editors who restore Ling Nut's version, as it has been extensively discussed and received unanimous approval. Restoring approved versions should not be regarded as "edit warring", which is a characterization that should only be applied to those making changes to that version without making any kind of effort -- much less a good faith one -- to raise their objections and discuss their proposed solutions here on the talk page. JRHammond (talk) 07:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

"disputed by Israel" phrasing, possible resolution

I strongly agree with JRHammond that international law is determinative in describing the conflict. I hope that this is not even a point of argument. At the same time, I recognize Ling.Nut's desire to voice Israel's undoubtedly notable view. I want to make four points which may solve the impasse:

1) It's an uncontroversial fact that there are no "disputed" portions of the West Bank. In fact, it's so uncontroversial that not only the UNSC, the UNGA, the ICJ and the EU agrees to this, but even the United States.

2) Israel is of the view that certain areas are of the West Bank are "disputed". This is a notable view since Israel is part to the conflict.

3) Consequently, it follows that the phrasing should be made to reflect that there are no "disputed" territories, while at the same time voicing Israel's notable view. This is not the case with the current formulation, which expresses the Israeli view without underlining the fact that this view is erroneous.

4) Change the wording to reflect the point in question, for example: "disputed by Israel, which is rejected by the international community" (or other collective term of your liking). Shoplifter (talk) 11:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not a legal document. Attempts to nail down every fine point of the legalities will result in bloated, spagetti prose... especially in the lead. Address this issue in the body text of the article. • Ling.Nut 11:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I stand by my suggestion. I believe it's imperative that the near-unanimous international consensus is reflected in the lede. It's up to the other editors to voice their opinions. I reject that this a legalistic fine point, in fact, I would say this is the beginning and the end to the conflict. Most everything else is patina to this one issue. Or, as the ICJ put it: "It's a fundamental principle of international law that it is illegal to acquire territory by war." Shoplifter (talk) 13:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• Extremely clear cite, please, for "the near-unanimous international consensus". Find the very best one possible. If it's a book, find something published by a premier university – you know, Harvard, Oxford, Cambridge, those kinda places. Don't even look in the direction of a radical school. Other publishers are possible too, but that is a strong position you are staking out when you say "nearly unanimous". You need a source with a bit more credibility than usual.. • Ling.Nut 13:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• West_Bank#Legal_status

• UN General Assembly resolution, January 2010: Peaceful Settlement of the question of Palestine
• I'm not sure what you're looking for here. We don't need a Harvard cite to buttress the undisputed, uncontroversial fact that the whole world except for Israel says the territories are occupied. Shoplifter (talk) 13:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Strongly Approve. I approve Shoplifter's suggested wording. This very reasonable suggestion resolves the issues as far as I'm concerned, and all Shoplifter's points made here are right on. JRHammond (talk) 13:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• No. I'm not sure what you're looking for either. I have already stated in the article that the territories are occupied. You apparently are searching for a statement that the occupation is illegal. That is an impassable barrier, in my view. First, we are not lawyers; we don't know jack about this. Second, I found a highly reliable source saying that the status is not so clearly illegal. There are other essays in this same text, however, that adopt a hardcore stance in the other direction. What to do?? We are not lawyers. We are on desperately shaky ground if we try to expound on legal issues. • Ling.Nut 13:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• No, this is twisting words. Israel disputes that the territories are occupied, not that the military occupation by itself isn't illegal. Everyone agrees that occupation, or acquiring territory by war, is illegal. Israel tries to make the case that the territories they conquered in the Six-Day War did not belong to anyone, which the international community (UNSC, UNGA, ICJ, EU, ICRC, and the US) rejects. Shoplifter (talk) 13:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not deliberately twisting anything; just wasn't sure what you meant. If your final statement is your position, then we don't need to do anything at all. We have already categorically stated that the territory is occupied.• Ling.Nut 13:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, I didn't mean to sound brash. But I don't agree that the issue is settled, because Israel's view is allowed to stand unquestioned. This gives undue weight to a fringe view. This is my point. Shoplifter (talk) 14:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

It isnt exactly accurate that the occupation is "illegal". An occupation itself is not illegal. And occupation != acquiring territory by war. What is illegal is not obeying the laws of military occupation. Such actions as establishing colonies in occupied territory or unilaterally annexing that territory or changing the penal code, with specific exceptions to this last one, are illegal actions. But occupation itself is not illegal. Israeli action in occupying the territory have violated international law, the Israeli occupation though is not by itself "illegal". It is unprecedented that a belligerent occupation lasts this long, but that also does not make the occupation itself illegal. What Israel has done as a part of the occupation is illegal, that is nearly beyond dispute (see the various resolutions on Israeli settlements or the ICJ ruling in the Wall case or the vast amount of material from the ICRC on Israeli violations of the 4th GC in the oPt and the Golan). But to the point of "unanimity" in the view that the West Bank is occupied territory. UNGA resolutions are a start, also are the documents from various UN agencies such as OCHA, UNICEF, WHO, ..., and, again, the documents from the ICRC. But if you want an academic journal or book, here you go:

• Roberts, Adam (1990), "Prolonged Military Occupation: The Israeli-Occupied Territories Since 1967", The American Journal of International Law, 84 (1), American Society of International Law: 60, doi:10.2307/2203016, Although East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights have been brought directly under Israeli law, by acts that amount to annexation, both of these areas continue to be viewed by the international community as occupied, and their status as regards the applicability of international rules is in most respects identical to that of the West Bank and Gaza. {{citation}}: More than one of |pages= and |page= specified (help)

Even the territories that Israel has applied its law to, what the source calls "acts that amount to annexation", are considered occupied territory by the international community. nableezy - 14:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• My Better Half is calling me away. Gone for several hours. I see nableezy's quote but no time to read at this moment (sorry!). If you folks find something authoritative that says Israel's "dispute" is against the weight of a huge consensus saying otherwise, then I suggest we move the text to a footnote rather than crap the lead up with legal spagetti. • Ling.Nut 14:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• Yes, this is true, but the occupation is illegal in part because, as the ICJ have found, it amounts to an attempt to acquire territory by war. Good clarification otherwise. I wasn't trying to outline the rules of war, just insofar as they apply to this conflict. Shoplifter (talk) 14:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

That acquisition of territory by force is illegal, that is true. But that does not make the underlying occupation illegal. There is a distinction between actions carried out during an occupation and the actual occupation. Things like the building of the wall within Palestinian territory or the application of Israli law to E. Jerusalem, those actions are illegal. nableezy - 14:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

You're right, and I apologize for being nebulous. As I wrote, the Israeli occupation is illegal, because it is in violation of a number of UN resolutions (including the famous Resolution 242), which says that Israel must withdraw from all territories conquered in the Six-Day War. In other words, in the eyes of the international community, Israeli presence in the occupied territories amounts to annexation (as was affirmed by the ICJ). Shoplifter (talk) 14:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

By and large, it is pointless arguing over minutiae of the lead when the body of the article is substandard and in need of significant development. Once that happens, it will be much clearer which facts merit coverage in the lead and which do not. Effort expended now on the lead will effectively be wasted. As a naive reader, it is pretty obvious to me that the status of the West Bank and East Jerusalem is "disputed" on all sides: just as those sympathetic to Israel dispute the final status of the West Bank in an imagined future settlement, so others dispute the validity of Israel's occupation of the West Bank in the first place. If ever there was a "disputed" issue, the endless discussion on this talk page illustrates that this is an example.

It isn't the role of Wikipedia to be part of the debate, to decide what international law states, or even to say that what the United Nations says has priority over what Israelis and Arabs say. Our aim is simply to inform and report, based on what a balance of reliable secondary sources have to say (none of the political bodies are secondary sources), and hence present all significant views in encyclopedic language with due weight. Once that is done in the body of the article, it will be much clearer what "disputed" means, and how to incorporate that (if at all) into the lead. Geometry guy 21:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• No, it's uncontroversial that there are no "disputed" territories in the West Bank, save for Israel's view. As I've mentioned repeatedly, virtually no significant actor on the international stage agrees with Israel in this regard (including the United States). I agree that this discussion became longer than it need to be; my proposed solution is simple. Once again, let me underscore the contention: In the eyes of the international community, there are no "disputed" territories, and to allow for Israel's view to be left unquestioned in the lead gives undue weight to this, clearly fringe position. Shoplifter (talk) 21:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• You miss my point. Even if everyone else in the world disputes Israel's view (and the world is nowhere near so simplistic), it is still a dispute from all sides. Geometry guy 22:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• It certainly is a dispute, in the same way that it's disputed whether the earth is round. The question is what prominence should be given to the fringe view. To a reader unbeknownst of the facts, the lead gives the impression that Israel's view is a major point in question, which it emphatically is not. Israel is saying: "We're not occuping this part of the West Bank, because it hasn't had a rightful owner since the Ottoman Empire", to which the rest of the world replies "Your presence constitutes a belligerent occupation of Palestinian territory". Likewise, almost the whole world is saying that the world is round. How should we present the facts? I say, it's a notable view because Israel is part to the conflict. But we've given it unjustified prominence in the lead, and we should find a way to deal with that. I think my solution is reasonable, but I'm open to other suggestions. Shoplifter (talk) 22:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not going to press my point, as that is part of the problem here, but comparison with a scientifically resolved debate is inappropriate. For an alternative comparison, consider whether Bill Clinton had sex with that woman or not. We could trade analogies for hours and disagree on which analogies were closer to the dispute here. I submit that this is, for the moment at least, a waste of time. Geometry guy 22:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• I don't want come off as contentious; that is not my intention. I do feel compelled to straighten out the facts on which I rest my proposition. I realize now that I should've been more comprehensive in giving my advice to begin with; I apologize for that. Let me just say this: The bottom line is that the Israel-Palestine conflict is a dispute about Israel's claims to certain land masses. The last UN resolution on the issue came out 164 countries in opposition to the Israeli view, and 7 in favor (4 abstentions). But that is not the question that we're discussing here. Israel is, to my knowledge, the only country in the world which asserts that certain areas of the West Bank are not under its military occupation. And while those proportions of support are not a mathematical equation, I respectfully believe that it's flippant to suggest that it's anything short of an overwhelming consensus, which has implications for our choice of wording. Shoplifter (talk) 22:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• The editors on this page are far, far, far, far too close to this topic, and uniformly far too committed to a POV. You are constitutionally incapable of seeing the viewpoint (not in the POV sense) of the relatively uninformed and dispassionate reader. You are also drawing lines in the sand based on Truth^TM... From the perspective of the average, uninformed and dispassionate reader: If there's a debate, no matter how valid, I wanna be told in the WP:LEAD that there's a debate – and then left to draw my own conclusion later. I don't wanna be breathlessly told how to think about every single detail at every earliest juncture possible. I want the body text to lay out the details, and I wanna draw my own conclusions for myself. Speaking for the Coalition of Nonaligned and Not Overly-Concerned Wikipedia Readers, I say that the lead is not only fine, but actually optimal as it is at this very moment. However, I refer you to my first three sentences. I doubt we'll have much luck avoiding being told how to think. • Ling.Nut 23:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• I won't get longwinded, because I feel I've stated my view and it's up to other editors to agree or disagree. I will only state what I believe JRHammond touched on above, namely that your reasoning sounds nice, but is essentially relativistic and tautological (please, don't take that as a personal affront, it's not intended to be). Yes, we shouldn't mention too much, we shouldn't mention too little, we should let the reader make up his own mind, etc. These are good things, but they don't mean much for our discussion because editors interpret such broad ideas with equivalent diversity. That's why there is a talk page... (Now I'm going to bed, it's 02:18 here). Shoplifter (talk) 00:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Shoplifter is quite right. It's a point of fact under international law that all of the West Bank, including Jerusalem, are occupied Palestinian territory. Including this "disputed" parenthetical in the lede gives undue WP:WEIGHT to a fringe view. This is not even in the least bit controversial. Mention it in the body, but remove it from the lede. Otherwise, something along the lines of Shoplifter's suggestion is required, noting the fringe view, but accompanied with the view of the entire rest of the world rejecting any Israeli claim to or attempts to effectively annex any inch of the occupied territories. JRHammond (talk) 01:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's delve into this a little bit deeper. The parenthetical reads "including portions of the West Bank disputed by Israel". Well, what portions does this refer to? Israel's official government position is not that the West Bank, or even portions of the West Bank, is Israeli territory. The only exception to that, the only portion of the West Bank Israel considers legally its own, is Jerusalem. But Israel's attempts to annex Jerusalem are unequivocally rejected by the international community as a violation of international law, and thus null and void. So how about this as a compromise solution:

The Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories (including Jerusalem, which Israel has attempted to annex), plus the concurrent refugee problem, are central concerns in the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict, raising issues in international law, and having far-reaching consequences in global affairs.

Approve. Please express your own approval/disapproval of this suggestion. JRHammond (talk) 04:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

added 1 sentence to lead; think it's uncontroversial

• I added, "In the following years there were numerous minor border clashes between Israel and its Arab neighbors, particularly Syria." I didn't want to lose a sense of the tension in the interim between the Suez Crisis and as-Samu.
• I hope this won't spark calls for more and more text to be added, though I'm open to refinements of the current text, of course. I suppose "particularly over water rights with Syria" might be acceptable. But we wanna keep it short and bland. And short. And bland. • Ling.Nut 00:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Reference

I asked for a specific reference citing the November Syrian-Egypt pact and somebody put up the Gawrych reference page 5. I always like to check these things out but I could not find it there. [24] It is best if references are accurate. I was able to find it at a Jerusalem Post article here [25] however do not know how to make the references the way they are set up on this page. Could someone please help? JuJubird (talk) 01:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I found some sources that say 4 November and others that say 7 November. Most sources simply say "November". What I kinda suspect is that there was a four-day meeting Nov. 4–7 in which many political issues were hashed out. I do intend to fix this, but it is a little low down on my list of priorities. ... hey, the Gawrych file you provided is not chapter 1 of the book. It is a much later chapter, beginning on page 97 or so. I found the relevant quote on page 5, just as nableezy (I think) indicated. Everything is correct. • Ling.Nut 02:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The text from Gawrych is as follows:

Meanwhile, back in Egypt, Nasser drew acerbic criticism from Arab capitals for failing to honor his defense pact with Syria. That agreement, initialed on 4 November 1966, obligated each country to provide military support should the other face attack from Egypt.

nableezy - 02:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

many additions to lede

It's becoming War and Peace again (pun intended). • Ling.Nut 02:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I've made two edits. One shortened a sentence. The other replaced one wording with another of equal length. The rest seems to be as originally posted. So could you explain what additions you are referring to you think have made it overly lengthy? JRHammond (talk) 03:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Legality of closing the Straits; legality of the occupation

• I suggest we create sections in body text about both these topics. • Ling.Nut 03:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm all for that. I'm not as knowledgeable about the legal issues relating to the straits, but I'm very familiar with legal issues relating to the occupation, so I can help with that. The occupation is illegal, which is to say, it's in violation of international law. This is uncontroversial. Israel is a member of the U.N. and remains in violation of numerous U.N. Security Council resolutions, beginning with 242, emphasizing the principle of international law on the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and calling upon Israel to withdraw. This has also been affirmed by the International Court of Justice. The international consensus on this point is also reflected in numerous UN General Assembly resolutions, such as 32/20 (1977), which expresses deep concern "that the Arab territories occupied since 1967 have continued, for more than ten years, to be under illegal Israeli occupation and that the Palestinian people, after three decades, are still deprived of the exercise of their inalienable national rights". JRHammond (talk) 03:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Lede 3rd Paragraph Dispute

As the protected status will expire tomorrow and the article will be again open for editing, I'd like to make sure that the edit warring doesn't begin again. I've expressed this elsewhere, but so far haven't gotten any response, so I'm adding a new section in the interests of getting feedback and hopefully establishing a consensus to "preempt" any further warring (pun intended). The 3rd paragraph currently reads:

On June 5, 1967, Israel launched what it subsequently described as a preemptive attack on Egypt.[24][25] [26][27][28][29][30] Initially, Israel falsely claimed at the U.N. Security Council that the Israeli attack had been in response to an attack by "Egyptian land and air forces".[31] Israel subsequently claimed it had taken preemptive action because it believed an Egyptian attack was imminent[24], despite the fact that its own intelligence assessment was that, given Israel's military superiority, such an attack was highly unlikely; an assessment shared by the U.S. intelligence community.[32] Egypt denied planning to attack Israel, saying the Israeli strike was not preemptive but an unwarranted and illegal act of aggression.[33] Jordan, which had signed a mutual defence treaty with Egypt on May 30, then attacked western Jerusalem and Netanya.[34][35][36]

The footnotes mess is a separate issue, discussed in a separate section. I'm concerned here with making sure the wording is acceptable to all. First, I'd like to get editors to respond expressing whether they approve or disapprove of the sentence: "On June 5, 1967, Israel launched what it subsequently described as a preemptive attack on Egypt." JRHammond (talk) 03:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Approve. It reads accurately and in a neutral manner. I'm content with this wording. Please approve or disapprove below this line -- if "disapprove", please explain your reasons and present a valid argument for why your own proposed wording would be better. JRHammond (talk) 03:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Approve. Phersu (talk) 14:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Approve. harlan (talk) 13:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Approve. Shoplifter (talk) 13:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Approve/Modify The lead was looking OK on NPOV issues, but needs a rewrite on its prose and other other WP:LEAD issues. I actually have free time over the next few days; I may tackle it. if I do, I'll rewrite in user space then post the final version here on Article Talk. That way no one will be shocked by sudden changes. • Ling.Nut 03:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

On second thought.... with all due respect to both parties: JRHammond's version is modestly closer to the mark than JiujitsuGuy's. However, now that I have had time to let it sink in, I do see the point that JRHammond's version makes the non-preemptive argument just a little too quickly and too emphatically. I would opt for something that dials down that side just a bit more... I'm gonna stop fixing references. Looking at peoples' behavior, it seems that the lead issue is a bit more urgent. I hope to have time tomorrow to write a version in my user space. I bear no ill will to any sides that may exist. I want a lead that is quite nearly dry, almost boring in its impartiality. Or if not boring, then at least unbiased... I really really have to log out until tomorrow, though. • Ling.Nut 15:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm open to suggestions on wording. However, the facts I added, surely you can agree, are very relevant. And if the facts lead you to the conclusion that the attack was non-preemptive, that is your own conclusion, not one that I put forth. So I don't really know what you mean by saying I made the "non-preemptive argument just a little too quickly and too emphatically." Facts are facts. JRHammond (talk) 00:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Approve/Modify. It is certainly an improvement. However, I'd rather have the sentence split up into two sentences, like this:

On June 5, 1967, Israel launched an attack on Egypt; Israel subsequently described the attack as being preemptive.

I think it's easier to read this way. --Frederico1234 (talk) 13:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Both are okay by me. JRHammond (talk) 15:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Secondly, I added: "Initially, Israel falsely claimed at the U.N. Security Council that the Israeli attack had been in response to an attack by "Egyptian land and air forces"... despite the fact that its own intelligence assessment was that, given Israel's military superiority, such an attack was highly unlikely; an assessment shared by the U.S. intelligence community." The bit where the ellipses is was not my work. Footnotes 31 and 32 are mine. I would refer people to the footnotes. Everyone here can verify the factual accuracy of my additions by going to the sources. Similarly, if anyone has any concerns or comments, please air them here before making changes. JRHammond (talk) 03:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Approve. It is factual, neutral, and verifiable, and adds important information for the context of this paragraph dealing with the claim that Israel's attack was "preemptive". Please express your approval or disapproval below, along with explanation. JRHammond (talk) 03:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Approve. Phersu (talk) 14:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Approve. harlan (talk) 13:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Approve. Shoplifter (talk) 13:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Neutral/Approve See above. • Ling.Nut 03:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• I have invested a very large amount of time and energy fixing the format of the article in my user space – and have barely scratched the surface. I'm gonna move the whole thing en masse to article space when the block is lifted. Please do not edit in my user space... you can comment on my talk page. • Ling.Nut 05:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Ling Nut, consensus is achieved through the editing process and the quality of the arguments made during community discussions which take place on various public pages. You are not discussing or addressing JRHammond's concerns. I'd suggest that you join the mediation case and hold off on moving "the whole thing en masse to article space". That sounds like you've been privately planning a replacement page during the period of sysop-imposed editing restrictions. harlan (talk) 07:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I looked at Ling Nuts edits in his (or her) sandbox, and as far as I can tell, all he did was to clean up the footnotes. I'm pretty sure he didn't mean to say in reply to JRHammond that he has an alternative version regarding the facts of the article to insert once the protected status is lifted. Just some good ol' house-cleaning that everyone can agree on. Shoplifter (talk) 07:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I thank Ling Nut for taking the time to help clean up footnotes. However, I also thank Harlan for pointing out that my concerns are not being addressed here. I believe Ling Nut mistakenly posted the above in this section when the section above was the intended place for it. I would REALLY appreciate it if other editors would kindly respond and express approval or disapproval of the wording in question in the 3rd paragraph. I REALLY would like to prevent any further edit warring by such means. Thanks. JRHammond (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC).

"Avoiding an edit war" is probably impossible, unless some blocks and bans are handed down. The positions of pro-Arab and pro-Israel editors are diametrically opposed, and set in stone... the best you can try to do is merely state that one side says it was preemptive and the other does not. Wikipedia does not have the ability (as other sources do) to take a stance. • Ling.Nut 14:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It might not be so "impossible" if you would actually just use this section according to its purpose and kindly comply with my request. Also, you appear to be unfamiliar with the discussion. Nobody -- NOBODY -- has suggested the article should state as fact that the attack was not preemptive. If you were familiar with the discussion, you would know that there is a majority of editors who agree both views should be presented neutrally, with neither expressed as fact, and there is a small fringe group of 2 or 3 editors who continually revert all attempts to implement the necessary changes to make the article NPOV compliant. Please familiarize with the discussion, and please express whether you approve or disapprove of the wording in question in the 3rd paragraph. Thanks. JRHammond (talk) 15:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Disapprove. Too much detail for the lead. --Frederico1234 (talk) 23:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The facts mentioned are in no way minor points to be made. They go right to the heart of the issue, so I think it's appropriate in the lede. I'd would to agree to a shorter 3rd para in the lede so long as this information is included in a discussion of the "preemptive" issue further in the article. I think it deserves its own section, so I propose we make that happen. I would write up a draft myself, but I won't have the time. Best I can do for now is contribute this bit from the current lede for it. JRHammond (talk) 01:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

If Israel only maintained the view that it had been attacked for a day(?) or so, then how is that not a minor point? --Frederico1234 (talk) 07:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not a minor point because if Israel felt it's attack was justifiably "preemptive", why would they feel it necessary to lie about being attacked first? They claimed a false pretense for their attack. That is by no means insignificant. JRHammond (talk) 07:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Please read the source carefully, you will see Israel did not even say it had been "attacked". Which makes your point even stronger. Marokwitz (talk) 08:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Your grasping at straws, Marokwitz. It's uncontroversial that Israel initially claimed Egypt attacked first, as the U.N. record shows, as elsewhere in the documentary record, e.g.: "Each Side Accuses Other of Making First Assault", New York Times, June 5, 1967. JRHammond (talk) 07:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Disapprove The words "Israel falsely claimed..." are an original interpretation of a primary source. First of all the source doesn't say "attacked" , it says "moved against" which may refer to mobilization of troops. Secondly, the source doesn't say "falsly". If we add a strong word such as "falsly" , this must come with a proper citation. Also regarding the use of "claimed", see WP:CLAIM, especially in such volatile issues. Marokwitz (talk) 08:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It is not an interpretation. It's a demonstrable fact that Israel claimed Egypt initiated the attack. It's also a fact that that was false. This is not controversial. JRHammond (talk) 07:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Disapprove Nowhere Israel "falsely claimed" anything. [26]--Mbz1 (talk) 21:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Fact: Israel claimed Egypt attacked first. Fact: This claim was false. What's the problem? This is not controversial. JRHammond (talk) 13:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)