Jump to content

Talk:Israeli–Palestinian conflict

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Former good article nomineeIsraeli–Palestinian conflict was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 19, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
In the newsA news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on March 30, 2002.


Opening paragraph

[edit]

" Key aspects of the conflict include the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, the status of Jerusalem, Israeli settlements, borders, security, water rights, the permit regime, Palestinian freedom of movement, and the Palestinian right of return." Although this is an interesting description of the IP conflict, it seems to limit its framing to post-1967; with the sole exception of the Palestinian right of return which includes the 1948 refugees. I feel this is misleading as not everyone on both sides of the conflict sees it that way; no to mention of course the 1882-1948 period. Noting that MOS:OPEN opening paragraph should establish context and notability while remaining as general as possible. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

agreed. The body does currently frame the conflict as primarily a post 67 issue, so we should make sure to represent the viewpoint you mentioned there first. Can you suggest some sources? DMH223344 (talk) 16:29, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can't think of any at the moment. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:34, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would also say the framing of it as a "conflict" is presented without qualification. Of course not everyone sees it as a "conflict". DMH223344 (talk) 17:07, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ICJ

[edit]

@DMH223344: [1] A lede is a summary of body that should be concise. US in theory also supports a two state solution so the exception part is redundant. "seeking permanent solution" bit is also redundant. As for Israel's arguments and the ICJ's rebuffal, this is way too overdetailed for an article on the overall Israeli-Palestinian 1882-2024 conflict. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:36, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

US officials speak in support of what they call a two state solution, but see actual US support (non-existent) in for example the votes on the recurring UNGA resolution "Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine" (basically every country for, US and Israel against).
The occupation is a key (the main?) issue in the conflict. The ICJ stance is the strongest representation of Israel's isolation wrt its framing of the occupation. DMH223344 (talk) 16:58, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still they are officially supporting the two state solution. It’s too detailed for the lead and is better elaborated at the ICJ’s case article. Makeandtoss (talk) 17:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is that official support? Officially, the US and Israel are against a two state solution and always have been (which is clear from even a cursory reading of the history). That's like saying the Biden administration supports a ceasefire. They did indeed shift to using the term "ceasefire", but to them, it means something totally different--and their *policy* makes it clear that they dont support a ceasefire. DMH223344 (talk) 17:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Omitting the exception of the US and Israel leaves any reader confused. If the international community is in agreement, why is there a conflict? DMH223344 (talk) 17:06, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I could see a case being made for removing the sentence about the "elimination of all forms of racism". Including that was my (bad) attempt to bring in mention of apartheid. DMH223344 (talk) 17:08, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't still make up my mind about how the main articles should be rejgged, for example the Israeli–Palestinian peace process looks antiquated. I do think the ICJ ruling is a significant sea change and it doesn't matter whether Israel (or the US) agrees with it, legally speaking. Selfstudier (talk) 17:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Palestine Israel" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Palestine Israel has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 3 § Palestine Israel until a consensus is reached. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 04:18, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Israel Palestine" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Israel Palestine has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 3 § Israel Palestine until a consensus is reached. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 04:19, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties

[edit]

This recent addition has resulted in the duplication of the Palestinian deaths in the first Arab-Israeli war. The infobox already includes the figure for the total deaths on the Palestinian side sourced to Laurence (2007), p. 194. It includes all the deaths caused by the war, including those of civilians (Mais il est clair que la plus grande partie des pertes palestiniennes concerne des non-combattants). The Time writes about the same casualties (From 1947 to 1949, ... according to the West Bank-based Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics... 15,000 people were killed). Alaexis¿question? 20:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alaexis:Agree that the deaths are duplicated, however I have a question: why is the figure given by Laurens expressed as a range when he says 13k Palestinian deaths? Time says 15k, so the current range would be wrong. I also went through Google Books and found other figures like 15k, 13-16k, 12-15k, 13-16k, etc. Seems like 12/13k is the mininum, not the maximum. - Ïvana (talk) 21:35, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're right. I'll remove the 3k figure, please feel free to add a range. Alaexis¿question? 20:41, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lancet article is poorly cited

[edit]

The lancet report does not suggest that about 186,000 have already died in the conflict, like appears in your page, but rather that based on other conflicts, they believe that about 186,000 will eventually die because of indirect reasons. Read the report carefully here: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(24)01169-3/fulltext


Quote from the report: In recent conflicts, such indirect deaths range from three to 15 times the number of direct deaths. Applying a conservative estimate of four indirect deaths per one direct death9 to the 37 396 deaths reported, it is not implausible to estimate that up to 186 000 or even more deaths could be attributable to the current conflict in Gaza. 209.2.224.134 (talk) 02:01, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 October 2024

[edit]

Please add main article links for the 'Fatah-Hamas split' and 'Israel-Hamas war' subsections for ease of navigation.

For example:

Fatah–Hamas split (2006–2007)

[edit]
Main article: Fatah-Hamas conflict

Israel–Hamas war (2023–present)

[edit]
Main article: Israel-Hamas war

AlecCoates (talk) 15:50, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Alaexis¿question? 18:34, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sailingsmooth5, why have you reverted my edit? Alaexis¿question? 19:58, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Information I added

[edit]

Hello BillHPike, I read your edit summary and I understood your intention and reasoning. I tried now to rebuild the part. I would appreciate if you could take a look! HaOfa (talk) 13:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there is any salvageable content, I feel it be best to merge with the existing Economic disputes and boycotts section. — BillHPike (talk, contribs)

International law and the use of force

[edit]

Regarding this diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict&oldid=1252596095

which removed the sentence "This is in contrast to the consensus in international law which allows for Palestinians, as a people under illegal military occupation, to use lethal force against Israeli military targets and installations." citing Erakat's book.

I'm pretty confident this is widely accepted and not the personal opinion of the cited author. I will check Aeyal Gross' work when I get a chance. DMH223344 (talk) 16:37, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian right to resist and Palestinian right of armed resistance are pertinent. The revert is based only on the lack of sourcing for "academic consensus" so it can go back in either with a source saying that or similar else suitably worded so as to describe the level of consensus that exists. Also worth noting that it is a matter of academic consensus that an occupier cannot self defend (an oxymoron). Selfstudier (talk) 16:49, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Smallangryplanet and Andrevan: Let's not be scrapping over trivia, see my comment above and let's fix the sentence up properly. Selfstudier (talk) 10:54, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, what are you thinking? Maybe I was too quick on the trigger given that that sentence is exactly the one from the Jpost article, and it's referencing not only academic consensus but international legal consensus - @Andrevan would you accept restoring that quote with a citation to the UN, which continually

2. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial domination, apartheid and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle;

? Smallangryplanet (talk) 11:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the problem is the expression "academic consensus", if there is not a source saying that or similar, we need to specify more carefully who it is that hold the view in question. Let's hunt about and see what we can find. Selfstudier (talk) 11:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I think I'm missing something then - the line in question is

This is in contrast to the consensus in international law which allows for Palestinians, as a people under illegal military occupation, to use lethal force against Israeli military targets and installations

, right? Smallangryplanet (talk) 11:34, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My fault for being unclear, Andrevan gave in edit summary "no academic consensus noted in source" which must refer to "the consensus in international law...". Selfstudier (talk) 11:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, that's what I assumed - so would an explicit reference to a legal (or several legal) sources pass muster, Andrevan? Smallangryplanet (talk) 11:59, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As Selfstudier says, per WP:RS/AC, a source must explicitly cite an international consensus or the wording should be changed. The UN would not be a source for that because it doesn't say that. Otherwise, it should be specifically attributed to the scholars or the wording otherwise changed. Andre🚐 18:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I don't understand how this runs into WP:RS/AC, given that it's not an academic opinion, it's a legal judgement from the United Nations, sort definitionally an international consensus, right? Smallangryplanet (talk) 18:34, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, a consensus must be named such explicitly. Otherwise it should just attribute a legal judgment to the UN. Or if all the UN member nations voted for a resolution it should say that. Andre🚐 18:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. I will do some digging for an explicitly named legal or academic consensus, in the short term how about:

This is in contrast to UN general assembly resolution A/RES/45/130 which reflects an international consensus (113 out of 159 voting nations voted in favor, 13 voted against[1]) explicitly allowing for Palestinians, as a people under foreign occupation, to use armed struggle to resist said occupation.[2]

[1] https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/282163?ln=en
[2] https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-184801 Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:31, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would also be interpretation of a WP:PRIMARY source so the contrast point seems to be WP:SYNTH. Need a secondary source making that interpretation. The UN record can be used for simple facts absent your interpretation. Andre🚐 19:41, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added without SYNTH. Smallangryplanet (talk) 20:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I made a tweak to the language. Don't forget UN resolutions are nonbinding so this doesn't "allow" anything nor does it say "allow." Andre🚐 20:19, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence needs to be improved, if sources can be found saying there is a consensus, all to the good, if not, then we cannot assume it exists. Selfstudier (talk) 18:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OpEd

[edit]
Funny but not germane to article Selfstudier (talk) 11:12, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

https://www.piratewires.com/p/how-wikipedia-s-pro-hamas-editors-hijacked-the-israel-palestine-narrative BrianH123 (talk) 02:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to thank everyone who helped me on my journey to becoming one of the top 30 members of this powerful group of pro-Hamas editors hijacking Wikipedia. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The author is busily twittering. Or is it Xing? Selfstudier (talk) 08:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And this Kinda giving the game away. Selfstudier (talk) 08:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a curtain. He's pulling it back. It's important work. It reveals that we work in pairs or trios to evade detection. There is incredible extensiveness. Setting aside the casual defamation and parallels with antisemitic conspiracy theories, I like to look on the bright side. Although the article would undoubtably be flagged as a hallucination if it had been produced by an LLM, these kinds of articles build community. They bring people together, albeit people likely to have an elevated susceptibility to misinformation, manipulation, radicalization, and probably finance/romance scams, and that's a good thing. And they help to make sure people don't feel too bad about employing deception to fight the pro-Hamas hijackers for the greater good. He's helping people come together and feel better about themselves. Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:08, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, and that's a wrap, close this up now. Selfstudier (talk) 11:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Selfstudier: Are you annoyed about being only "in the top 99.975% of editors by number of edits"? Zerotalk 01:06, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israeli–Palestinian_conflict&oldid=1254372958"
pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy