Talk:Israeli–Palestinian conflict/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Biased historical presentation

The article presents a biased background history for the conflict by framing the circumstances strictly through the settler-colonial narrative lens while omitting relevant historical context (such as that presented in History of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel). The article assumes that the conflict began with the development of Zionism; however, the historical context from which Zionism emerged should not be omitted, as it is crucial to a more complete understanding of the shape of the modern-day conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.239.139 (talk) 18:47, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Editors must be extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic except for making edit requests. Edit requests most likely to succeed are those that are 'Specific, Uncontroversial, Necessary, Sensible' per WP:EDITXY. This is not an edit request. It is an unsolicited article review from a particular perspective rather than with reference to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. It is therefore not actionable. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:28, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

FYI: “How Wikipedia’s Pro-Hamas Editors Hijacked the Israel-Palestine Narrative”

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

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)

The author is busily twittering. Or is it Xing? Selfstudier (talk) 08:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

And this Kinda giving the game away. Selfstudier (talk) 08:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

Lol, and that's a wrap, close this up now. Selfstudier (talk) 11:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

trouble confirming a citation

To editor Alaexis: You cited

Breger, Marshall J.; Reiter, Yitzhak; Hammer, Leonard (2010). "Regulation of holy places in the West Bank and Gaza". Holy Places in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict : Confrontation and Co-Existence. Taylor & Francis Group. ISBN 9780203867457.

about Western Wall access. I have both the ebook edition which that isbn refers to, and the hardback edition. Breger+Reiter+Hammer are not the authors but rather the editors, as this is an anthology. Moreover, there is no chapter "Regulation of holy places in the West Bank and Gaza". There is, however, a chapter "The legal regulation of holy sites" by Breger+Hammer (pages 20–49), which on pages 34–37 has a subsection headed "Regulation of holy places in the West Bank and Gaza". Alas, that subsection does not seem to mention the Western Wall at all. Please clean up this citation, or explain how I have it wrong. Incidentally, the truth is that the prohibition was for Israelis, not just for Jews, and Israeli Arabs also couldn't visit except for organized Christmas tours to Bethlehem for those who could prove they are Christians. Quite a few foreign Jews managed to visit, though the Jordanians didn't encourage it. Zero^talk 12:37, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

You can find it in footnote 139

Jordan agreed to allow Israel “free access for the Holy Places and cultural institutions and use of the cemetery on the Mount of Olives.” That agreement was never adhered to by the Hashemite Jordan Kingdom. Thanks for pointing it out, I'll amend the text. Alaexis_¿question? 15:50, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

But this does not support the claim "Israelis were forbidden". Not having free access is certainly not the same as being forbidden. DMH223344 (talk) 16:36, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Could you explain what the difference is? Alaexis_¿question? 19:03, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

For example, if prior approval was needed it wouldnt be considered "free" access, but that's certainly not the same as being "forbidden". "access was restricted" is a much more accurate representation of the information presented here. DMH223344 (talk) 23:38, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Right, "free access" cannot be promoted to "no access" by editor alone. The full story (easily sourced) is more complicated still. Jordan did not agree to allow free access, but only to establish (jointly with Israel) a committee to agree on arrangements for access in both directions. (Read the armistice agreement.) That committee never reached an agreement and Jordan and Israel blamed each other for the failure. I'm dubious that this very high level article should have such detail, but my point is that the common "Jordan promised something and reneged on it" version is the Israeli position only. Zero^talk 01:32, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

This is your interpretation which is different from the one in teh source. But indeed we don't need to describe such details in this article and I didn't include them either. I've rephrased the sentence to follow the sources more closely. Alaexis_¿question? 07:56, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

How is "had no access" different from "forbidden"? It should read "had restricted access" DMH223344 (talk) 15:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I changed it to match the source more precisely, which says "free access for the Holy Places and cultural institutions and use of the cemetery on the Mount of Olives". Also, the citation is still wrong as I detailed above. Zero^talk 00:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

"Free" is misleading, it seems like they required them to pay for the access. Alaexis_¿question? 13:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

So cite that, it's still not the same as forbidden. Selfstudier (talk) 13:51, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Intifadas

The two intifadas are notably missing from the lede. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:30, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

a discussion of those developments seems like it would flow naturally at the end of the third paragraph. DMH223344 (talk) 14:29, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Added. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

" 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)

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)

Can't think of any at the moment. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:34, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

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)

ICJ

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"Palestine Israel" listed at Redirects for discussion

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 ^(TALK_CONT) 04:18, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

"Israel Palestine" listed at Redirects for discussion

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 ^(TALK_CONT) 04:19, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Lancet article is poorly cited

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)

Casualties

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)

@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)

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)