Jump to content

Talk:Image and Reality of the Israel–Palestine Conflict

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

Okay, took out the Daniel Pipes link. I think book reviews should only be included if they, you know, touch upon the book. Thesobrietysrule 09:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The latest edition

[edit]

The article states: "In 2003, a 256-page paperback revised edition was published (ISBN 1859844421)." Well, I have that edition, (same ISBN number), but the book is 287 pages (including index). Are there several versions of the book, or what? Huldra 04:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, the book is 287 pages. But amazon quotes 256 pages. I guess they must have made a mistake, so I've changed the number. Gatoclass 05:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I also think we should have something about the content, say, what I have seen done with other books: a short summary of the content in each chapter. As the article is now, there is no more content there than you could get at abebooks. Regards, Huldra 06:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Content

[edit]

Ok, I´m starting in a small way to add content, first copied from [1]: Huldra 09:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC):[reply]

Introduction

[edit]

p. xi: "the Zionist movement sought [..] to create an overwhelmingly, if not homogeneously, Jewish state in Palestine. [...] the main obstacle to realizing its goal was the indigneous Arab population. For, on the eve of Zionist colonization, Palestine was overwhelmingly not Jewish but Muslim and Christian Arab. Across the mainstream Zionist spectrum, it was understood from the outset that Palestine´s indigneous Arab population would not acquiesce in its dispossession. [...p.xii:] Basically the Zionist movement could choose between only two strategic options to achieve its goal: what Benny Morris has labeled ´the way of South Africa´-´the establishment of an apartheid state, with a settler minority lording over a large, exploited native majority´- or the ´way of the transfer´-´you could create a homogenous Jewish state or at least a state with an overwhelming Jewish majority by moving or transferring all or most of the Arabs out.´ In the first round of conquest, the Zionist movement set its sight on `the way of transfer´. [..p. xvi:] The landmark Fourth Geneva Convention, ratified in 1949, for the first time ´unequivocally prohibited deportation´of civilians under occupation (Articles 49, 147). Accordingly, after the June war Israel moved to impose the second of its two options mentioned above -apartheid."

I don't think it's a great idea to quote from the book at length. If you want to add more content to the page, perhaps a synopsis in your own words, with an occasional quote where appropriate, would be more useful. Gatoclass 17:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I agree, just added the above as basis for a draft, if you like (..and because I had it easely available ;-)). I´ll (hopefully) will add a synopsis, but that takes a bit more concentrated effort than I feel for just today... Regards, Huldra 19:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categories of criticism

[edit]

Possible categorisations of this book include:

  • Category:Books critical of Israel
  • Category:Books critical of Zionism

either or both depending on content.
I personally interpret the categories as follows:

  • the first category as relating to criticisms of actions of the state of Israel
  • the second category as relating to criticisms of support for the existence of a Jewish homeland.

The book has been placed in "Category:Books critical of Zionism" and there are "see also" links between the two category pages.
How would the book best be categorised? Gregkaye (talk) 00:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Image and Reality of the Israel–Palestine Conflict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:46, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Huldra revert

[edit]

Huldra He gave the book as reference to his phrase so he does say this about the book.--Shrike (talk) 04:57, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Shrike: not on the page you gave, he doesn't. So please give the page where he actually reference the book!, Huldra (talk) 22:11, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Huldra https://books.google.com/books?id=Fd4nDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA147&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false see ref 38 Shrike (talk) 06:50, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Shrike: yeah, but what page is ref 38 on?? (the content of ref 38 is not on page 147, ie he doesn't mention the book on p. 147). Also, to me it doesn't look as if it is Robert S. Wistrich who has written this (he was just the editor), instead it looks as if was a de:Clemens Heni who is the author? (Don't worry: I won't bring you to AE for falsification of sources over this....:/ ) Huldra (talk) 22:09, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Huldra, Its actually Wistrich his article is from 135 to 148, the ref 38 that on page 147 is for page 142 (near the end of the page)--Shrike (talk) 06:38, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, my bad: Wistrich is the author, Huldra (talk) 22:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wistrich on page 142 gives his opinion about what Finkelstein thinks and then references Finkelstein book generically (without any page reference).So this is good as someones opinion about Finkelstein but no good as a reference for the book itself; unless you can find the words "parasitic class" etc in Finkelstein book, then this material is POV only.Selfstudier (talk) 11:41, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What Finkelstein actually said~as opposed to wistrich opinion about what Finkelstein thinks [Norman G. Finkelstein (2003). Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict. Verso. pp. 20–. ISBN 978-1-85984-442-7.] ...if anything, it is transforming Israeli Jews into a parasitic class...Selfstudier (talk) 11:49, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No he base his opinion on the a book so its perfectly OK to Include . And its attributed to him per WP:RSOPINION so I see no problem here --Shrike (talk) 12:11, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
His opinion is about Finkelstein and not about the book. That's POV, not a book review. You can put it in the Finkelstein page instead.Selfstudier (talk) 12:35, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, when we are writing about the book "Image and Reality of the Israel–Palestine Conflict" I had expected that we would quote proper reviews of the book...not just some throw away characteristics about its author: I cannot see that it belongs in this article, Huldra (talk) 22:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is WP:RS about the book there is no policy based reason to not to include --Shrike (talk) 21:00, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nope there is no RS "about the book" and you have two editors have given you policy based reason to exclude ie relevance (lack of it).Selfstudier (talk) 21:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Shrike: Please explain here why you have added a neutrality tag, identifying specific issues that are actionable within Wikipedia's content policies. Thank you.Selfstudier (talk) 08:46, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because you excluded important opinion about the book without any policy based reason --Shrike (talk) 10:05, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A policy based reason was given, lack of relevance therefore undue. If you wish to dispute this, please start an RFC, adding a neutrality tag after 2 editors disagreed with you is not the correct way to deal with a content dispute.Selfstudier (talk) 10:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted this back in, as the source is an academic peer reviewed book - which is a step up from a book review. Published research findings belong here, and this is attributed.Icewhiz (talk) 13:02, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a review of the book, it is not even a discussion of the book, it is the author opinion of what Finkelstein believes (this can easily be seen because he mentions a phrase used by Finkelstein in his book as referencing all Jews when Finkelstein explicitly refers to Israeli Jews and in a different context) Arguing that this is a review of any sort of the actual book is simply specious.Selfstudier (talk) 11:08, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree its not review but Its source about the book and the author so its WP:DUE to include --Shrike (talk) 11:19, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You say it's "about the book", please quote from the text where he mentions the book(a stray reference without a page number in the notes doesn't count)Selfstudier (talk) 11:55, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
According to what policy you base you request?The book is mentioned and given as a reference to the paragraph. That's enough-- Shrike (talk) 11:59, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioned several times already, relevance...your source is irrelevant to the book it is a reference that is only good for it's opinion about Finkelstein and it belongs only in that article not in this one.Please revert the addition or I will.Selfstudier (talk) 12:07, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is a peer reviewed secondary source on the topic - a WP:RS - not an opinion.Icewhiz (talk) 13:04, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's the whole problem, it's not on the topic, its about Finkelstein not about the topic. The book isn't even mentioned in the main text.Selfstudier (talk) 13:45, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The source covers the nature of Finkelstein's writing in this book.Icewhiz (talk) 13:57, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't. The page is simply a polemic against Deutscher, Steiner, Chomsky, Finkelstein, Rose and then on to Pappe, etc etc. By your logic, these 2 pages are relevant for any book written by these people. Rubbish. Wistrich expresses no opinion about the book, good or bad, only about Finkelstein himself.Selfstudier (talk) 14:16, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the material for which there is no consensus to add and commenced an RFC.Selfstudier (talk) 14:44, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

[edit]
(non-admin closure) Closed as consensus to exclude the proposed paragraph (sentence) from the article. - MrX 🖋 18:25, 25 December 2019 (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.

Should the following paragraph be included in the article: Robert S. Wistrich says that in the book Finkelstein doesn't see Jews as nation but rather as "parasitic class" that have no rights.[Wistrich, Robert S. (December 2016). Anti-Judaism, Antisemitism, and Delegitimizing Israel. U of Nebraska Press. pp. 142, 147. ISBN 9780803296718.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)]

Enter Yes or No with one-sentence explanations in the Survey. Back-and-forth discussion may be in Threaded Discussion. Selfstudier (talk) 14:42, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note:For clarification ref 38 is the book [https://books.google.com/books?id=Fd4nDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA147

Futher to clarify that one of the editors involved in initiating the dispute subject of theis RFC, Icewhiz, has now been blocked/banned.Selfstudier (talk) 09:49, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

His made his edits before he was banned so his statement should be taken in too account like any other editor view--Shrike (talk) 10:14, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
  • No The sourced material is Wistrich discussing Finkelstein and others, not about the book, which is not even mentioned in the main text.Selfstudier (talk) 14:42, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. Secondary peer reviewed source by expert in the field (Professor of European and Jewish history) describing the nature of the writing in this book. Clearly relevant RS, and required per NPOV.Icewhiz (talk) 15:29, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes The source is describing the author views in this book.So it clearly relevant in the article about the book. --Shrike (talk) 15:37, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the book is mentioned in a footnote, only. Wanting to include this is scraping the bottom of the barrel, (If this is included: books.google.com gives about 4,670 results for "Image and Reality of the Israel–Palestine Conflict"...any volunteers to go through them and list them all....?) Huldra (talk) 20:42, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Very strange comment. Not worth citing. Drmies (talk) 00:38, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes - an academic publication discussing the book by a noted expert. There's no requirement that the discussion be in "main text" vs footnotes. Here come the Suns (talk) 14:53, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - Based on the source, it's not supported by a meaningful scholarly analysis. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:26, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes - Per Icewhiz. It's a legitimate point of view and a reliable source.StoryKai (talk) 07:33, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No – based on the evidence of cherry picking in this survey and the threaded discussion below. signed, Rosguill talk 15:33, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, include it as Wistrich's opinion. This is a very short Wikipedia article that certainly would benefit from a lot more material, and this opinion is related to Finkelstein's book and comes from a well-regarded scholar. There is no reason to censor this article of the opinion, especially when the article is so evidently starved for content already. Alternatively, this information could be moved to the Norman Finkelstein article, but I see no problem with using it here.Hko2333 (talk) 05:06, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes A scholar published in a peer reviewed publication is obviously RS. None of the editors opposing inclusion seem to be providing a policy based argument to exclude it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:33, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Without giving the source where Finkelstein actually wrote the questioned opinion, Wistrich could be seen as stating his own opinion by borrowing other's mouth, hence this kind of statement should be placed only with a more solid and reliable source. JohnThorne (talk) 15:27, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No because the reference in Finkelstein's book to "parasitic class" is not to Jews as a whole, but is Finkelstein's claim of what Israel is doing (not has done) to Israeli Jews. I.e., it is a comment on Israel, not on Jews. It has to be said that this style of writing (opinion expressed as if it is a reference) was usual for Wistrich; we shouldn't buy into it. Zerotalk 14:00, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No per Huldra and Drmies. We can do better and it does not serve our readers. Lightburst (talk) 20:35, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the only relevance to the book comes from a footnote and there's no indication that this opinion is widely-held or noteworthy, nor is it even a particularly encompassing summary of Wistrich's opinion on the book. It feels like it's being pushed for inclusion purely because of its scathing or shocking nature; as it says in WP:QUOTE, Where a quotation presents rhetorical language in place of the more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias, it can be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia's narrative on the subject; be very careful. This seems like a textbook example of such usage - it's a biting rhetorical flourish that provides little usable information. If Wistrich's opinion is relevant and widespread, we should be able to use additional sources to paraphrase it into more dispassionate, neutrally-worded text rather than quoting this sort of rhetorical bludgeon directly. Not every line of every opinion is automatically relevant, and shocking, WP:EXCEPTIONAL rhetorical flourishes like this that don't line up with more dispassionate characterizations (even from people who disagree with the subject's opinions) should in particular be viewed with skepticism. --Aquillion (talk) 20:34, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded Discussion

[edit]

The fact that the originating editor now sees it necessary to "explain" (by way of an unsigned clarification note added to the RFC above) which part of the contested material actually mentions the book is telling. The only reference to the book is in the notes and the book title is given there without any page reference or explanation as to which material it refers. If we were to edit our own articles here on WP in such a way we would be guilty of abuse of sources.Selfstudier (talk) 16:46, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Its usual practice in scholarly work to cite primary source in these case a book as a reference given in the end of article and it refers to the whole book--Shrike (talk) 16:57, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What a strange comment--Wistrich, in those sections, isn't even remotely trying to take a neutral, academic tone as one might expect from an academic publication. I find it very odd that an academic press would run this--I imagine it's out of respect to the author/editor of the commemorative volume. But yes, this comment can hardly be proven to follow from a careful analysis of the book--there's not even page numbers cited in the footnote, no textual analysis, no citations, no qualifications, nothing, just a blanket condemnation of the man, and a quick, easy citation for the book as a whole. No, Shrike, this is not usual practice in scholarly work. Drmies (talk) 00:38, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
your analysis of the quality of Wistrich's work and the U of N's editorial standards is interesting. Perhaps you can publish an academic article rebutting his thesis. Until then, we have a peer-reviewed academic publication that carries this view, and your opinion of it carries no weight as far as wikipedia policy goes. Here come the Suns (talk) 14:58, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not to blind you with science, but the book is essentially a kind of Festschrift, and the actual piece more an opinion piece than anything else. Your repeated insertion of "anti-Israeli" in the lead was disruptive as well: if that should go in the opening sentence because it's in a published review, then you might as well throw in all the positive reviews as well. User:Sean.hoyland was quite correct in their edit summary. What you did was the very essence of cherry-picking: you chose one word from a review you liked and presented it as academic fact. BTW yes our opinions do carry weight, but explaining why will take more time than I am willing to spend on it. Drmies (talk) 17:35, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again, your personal opinion of the book, while amusing, carries absolutely no weight as far as wikipedia policy goes. It is the work of one of the world's leading scholars of the topic, published by an academic press. As far as wiki policies goes, that is the end of the story.
You might want to take note of the fact that your latest edits violate the 1RR restriction on this article. Here come the Suns (talk) 17:56, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please put comments that do not relate to this RFC on the talk page.Thank you.Selfstudier (talk) 18:29, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also note that "Robert S. Wistrich says that in the book Finkelstein doesn't see Jews..." is false, Wistrich does not say "in the book". He can't say "in the book" because it isn't in the book (the words "parasitic class" are used in a different context and referring to Israeli Jews not all Jews). So not only is the putative editor misrepresenting Wistrich, the latter is indirectly misrepresenting Finkelstein's book, which he neither mentions in the text nor provides the relevant reference for anyone to check in the note, but that's OK, his getout of jail free card is that it is his view of Finkelstein and not his book and that is the reason why this edit should go in the Finkelstein article if anywhere at all. Though I can only hope we are not going to end up with this kind of trashy diatribe in Wikipedia.Selfstudier (talk) 17:54, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He give the book as reference to his characterization of the author views in the book but I have no problem to tweak the text as necessary--Shrike (talk) 18:06, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The note pointing to the Finkelstein book follows a whole paragraph not just the text you cherry picked. Had Wistrich or any other author wanted to specifically refer comment to the book, they would have said so in the text eg "Finkelstein, in his book, says....." and then referenced it at the end.Selfstudier (talk) 18:38, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Only this text refers to the book other snippets referring to his other books --Shrike (talk) 14:24, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you look again, there is a whole paragraph, not just the part you cherry picked.Selfstudier (talk) 16:51, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Its you who should look again this snippet talk only about his book other snippets talks about other books.But if you claim its "cherry-picked" propose a not "cherry picked" version--Shrike (talk) 19:32, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
People can look for themselves and see that what I have said is true. As for the wording, the RFC wording is that which you and editor Icewhiz insisted on including 4 times notwithstanding arguments presented.In any case, this is not about wording, this is about it being UNDUE, POV pushing nothing more.Selfstudier (talk) 21:21, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How its WP:UNDUE or WP:POV if its published in scholarly press by expert in the field? You just WP:IDONTLIKEIT --Shrike (talk) 07:36, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This has been explained several times already, NPOV requires relevance, this material is only relevant for Wistrich opinion of Finkelstein, it is not Wistrich opinion of the book; I am sure you looked very hard to find a bad review of the book and being unsuccessful came up with this garbage instead.Selfstudier (talk) 09:42, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Its very relevant as it mention the book as primary source to Wistrich opinion on Finkelshtein. You do everything to defend this garbage book and protect it from negative opinion--Shrike (talk) 09:56, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article is balanced without this addition, you are simply pushing this to try and unbalance it, obvious POV push.Selfstudier (talk) 10:00, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here the source..."In recent years Finkelstein became the Jewish icon for a motley assortment of Islamists, neo-Nazis, Holocaust deniers, fascist antisemites and deluded leftists who believe that demonic Israel is the source of all their woes."(referenced to his own book!...his opinion of Finkelstein....continues...)"Cruder than Chomsky, Finkelstein does not see Jews as a people but rather a kind of parasitic class with no historic right whatsoever to a historic homeland in Israel, to self defense against Palestinian terrorism or to a Law of Return to preserve their group identity" (here it gives the note and in the notes is given the book without any page reference (because it's not in the book)....continues....)"An unpleasant odor of hubris, rage and contempt for Judaism, Jewish history and Zionist politics oozes from such polemics" (referenced WITH page numbers to a different Finkelstein book) and it continues like this, a diatribe before and after condemning Chomsky and a list of others as well as Finkelstein....All this and no mention of the book at all.Clearly and obviously UNDUE.Selfstudier (talk) 09:57, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He makes his conclusion based on the book as primary source.Its common scholarly practice.--Shrike (talk) 10:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, he does not, it's not in the book, how many more times? That's why he has page references for one of Finkelstein books but not the one subject of this article, because the material is not in the book, its just his personal opinion of Finkelstein which you are trying to misrepresent as his opinion of the book.Selfstudier (talk) 11:00, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Shrike replying here for nicer threading, the off-handed "see [book]" is sloppy referencing on Wistrich's part and leads me to the same conclusion as Drmies and Selfstudier, that this section (or at least this assertion, as Wistrich is able to provide page numbers for other claims against Finkelstein) is not on par with scholarly standards. If this were the only coverage that the subject had received, then perhaps it would still be DUE, but we must now consider the point raised by Huldra in her survey response: given the glancing coverage in the at-issue source and the seemingly vast abundance of coverage of the subject, it seems unlikely that this specific opinion about Finkelstein and/or the subject is anything other than cherry picking. signed, Rosguill talk 13:50, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems clear from the discussion so far that the proposed material is not relevant (relates to Finkelstein not the book), not notable (at all) and the sourcing is at best, dubious and unscholarly. Completely UNDUE.Selfstudier (talk) 09:54, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not clear at all saying so doesn't make it true --Shrike (talk) 10:15, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV is about 3 things, relevance, notability and sourcing; I note you didn't comment on any of those three things.Selfstudier (talk) 10:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I did comment about all you just disregraded because you WP:DONTLIKEIT --Shrike (talk) 10:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is I have addressed policy reasons why I don't like it and you have provided no policy reasons as to why you like it.Selfstudier (talk) 11:42, 4 October 2019 (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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 July 2022

[edit]

Add {{Norman Finkelstein}} to the bottom of the article. Uriahheep228 (talk) 19:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thanks. --N8wilson 🔔 06:19, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Image_and_Reality_of_the_Israel–Palestine_Conflict&oldid=1202920183"