Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Arab-Israeli conflict oasis

The AI Oasis - General discussion for all Wikipedia:Wikiproject:Arab-Israeli conflict/Project articles - works like the Village pump, specific to this topic. shortlink: WP:AICO

I have taken the liberty of implicitly suggesting a structure for this page. That we group issues by article as a way of organizing the issues and tracking when all issues with a particular article are resolved. OneVoice 19:56, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Sound logical. I would have myself if I wasn't so busy ;) -戴眩sv

Articles Under Discussion

Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict 2004

The page has been modified to include both acts of terrorism and other deaths. I modified the page to indicate that certain acts are terrorism. Viajero has decided that suicide bombings of city buses may not be described as terrorist and deletes all references to terrorism from the page. Suicide bombings are a prime example of terrorism as defined on the Terrorism page. If we are going to remove the word terrorist and terrorism from Wikipedia, that is a decision that should be implemented throughout the site. I have replaced terrorism each time Viajero deleted it. The resulting edit war caused the page to be protected.OneVoice 18:01, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

History of Palestine

Benny Morris on page 29 of his book Israel's Border Wars 1949-1956 states that 200,000 Arabs moved from the desert to the coastal plain of Israel and Lebanon between 1930 and 1945. The reason cited is quote: Israel's relative prosperity continued to exert a magnetic power. Zero0000 objects to Benny Morris's statement and is repeatedly deleting it from the article. see Talk:History of Palestine for details as well as Zero0000's comments in the page history. OneVoice 22:16, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The book of Morris is a professional level history book and clearly beyond OneVoice's reading ability. If someone really needs an explanation of what Morris is saying, ask and you shall receive. Meanwhile I am thoroughly fed up with this idiot and decided to put together a case for his banning. --Zero 23:30, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Page edited, Benny Morris's statements deleted by Viajero. Page protected by Viajero OneVoice 23:32, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Please do explain, Zero. Though your judgement in matters of history is generally sound, repeatedly deleting the statement without an explanation of why it's erroneous or misinterpreted does look bad. --No-One Jones 23:42, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Please look at Talk:History of Palestine where I tried to explain already. If anything there is not clear, feel free to ask again. Essentially, Morris is recounting the opinions of some Israelis from the 1950s as to why Palestinians wanted to cross back into Israel (from where they had recently left). Morris does not state this as his own opinion and from the fact that he spends the rest of his book propounding different theories one can infer that it isn't his opinion. (Also, because those opinions contradict standard scholarship Morris would not present them as facts without also presenting a careful case for them and disproving the evidence against them.) In addition to OneVoice claiming as Morris's opinion things that are not his opinion, he also severely distorts them as I showed at Talk:History of Palestine. One extra point: OneVoice claims that "Israel's relative prosperity" refers to a period when Israel didn't exist. --Zero 00:25, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Let's bring the paragraph word for word, quoted exactly:

Some Israeli officials, trying to explain the persistence of the infiltration phenomenon during the 1950s, linked it to the bedouin life-style and to the urbanization and pauperization that had drawn or pushed thousands of rural Arabs to Palestine's burgeoning towns during Ottoman and British Mandate rule. Perhaps as many as 200,000 Arabs had moved, between 1930 and 1945, from the desert to the prospering coastal areas of Palestine and Lebanon. Israel's relative prosperity continued to exert a magnetic power.

So, it seems that Zero0000 is claiming that the phrase "Some Israeli officials" applies to the entire paragraph. I believe that Morris relating one sentence that is the opinion of "Some Israeli officials" and related supporting facts in the rest of the paragraph. OneVoice 03:11, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

My opinion on this is given at Talk:History of Palestine. I'll also take the opportunity to remark that conducting debate on a topic in several places at once is a bad idea and leads to time-wasting and misunderstandings. --Zero 23:38, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps that is one of the reasons that Stevertigo hopes that we will collect the discussion together and present here on this page. OneVoice 02:25, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Anti-Zionism

Grand Mufti or Mufti

He is titled as "Grand Mufti" at PalestineFacts.org. "appointed Grand Mufti of Jerusalem on May 8, 1921 (until 1948)" per PASSIA. Given these two citations I would like to ask if anyone has any objections to agreeing that the title "Grand Mufti" is correct. - OneVoice 19:57, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I dont think that the issue was his name, OV. The issue was whether a meeting with Hitler gets him the title of "collaborator". I want to see some sources relating to this issue, before I start taking a side. -戴&#30505sv 20:45, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

!! You may be right, but the way I read the diffs, Viajero was deleting two distinct items 1. "Grand" from "Grand Mufti" and 2. "high-profile" from "high-profile collaborator". He did not touch the work "collaborator" in either of his two reverts. (is that a word? reversions? hmmm...) I may be in error, its happened before, and at my age it may be happening more often than I would like to acknowledge. (one of the benefits of old age, is being able to claim fallibility with any feelings of inadequacy ;) Perhaps Viajero can clear this up for us here. OneVoice 20:57, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

List of massacres committed during the Al-Aqsa Intifada

I protected this yesterday (thanks for reminding me to post this Uriber) after an edit war between Viajero and StarOfDavid. It seems that the best way to deal with the pages is to simply protect them as they become sticking points. OneVoice, I and others are working on the WP:AIC page as a central way of organizing discussions related to these various related AIC articles. To discuss the page in question, we are going to try an experiment, using the WP:AICO (Arab-Israeli conflict Oasis) - as a place for all related discussion. I will include this message there as well. By forcing people to discuss these issues on a separate but related page, we can keep all the small fires from getting out of control - it's the small fires that are problematic, because they are hard to access, can pop up anywhere, and rareley get good moderation. Be well,-戴&#30505sv 20:41, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Elon Peace Plan, Geneva Accords, The People's Voice

These have been subject to edit wars regarding what should be included in each article and what is irrelevant. I promised No-One Jones to produce draft versions that are uniform in content. As a first step I have produced User:OneVoice/Saudi peace plan. The HTML comments provide the layout and what material should be included and in what order (for instance: start with who proposed, when proposed, where in what forum, continue with who supports it, provide the plan's understanding of the fundamental issues, etc.) Comments please. OneVoice 21:11, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

The article starts with a statement that the conflict is based upon occupation and refugees. This is disputed. In the related talk page it is contended that the basis of the conflict pre-dates 1967 (occupation) and even pre-dates (1948). Indeed, the "cycle-o-violence" began no later than the riots and massacres of 1929 or even 1920. The Palestinian claim nationhood or peoplehood at those times if not from an earlier date. The statement should be removed till we agree on what the basis of the conflict is. OneVoice 22:27, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The article claims two bases for the conflict:

1. occupation
2. refugess

The conflict began not later than 1929 and perhaps no later than 1920. At that time there was neither occupation nor refugees. The bases of the conflict can not be events that would not take place for another 20 years. OneVoice 13:03, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The page has been protected. I propose that the first paragraph, the definitional paragraph include material regarding the pre-1948. My suggested text below:

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an ongoing conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. The conflict began no later than 1929. At that time the conflict revolved around the immigation of Jews to the British Mandate for Palestine.

Today the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians revolves the fate of the occupied Palestinian territories - the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and the fate of the Palestinian refugees. While the latter issue has always been a part of the conflict the aforementioned issue was introduced into it in 1967 during the Six day war. Other conflicts related to these two have also sprung up at a later stage. It is those two issues that both parties agree must be solved before a just and lasting peace can be established.

OneVoice 15:06, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The conflict, today as ever, revolves around only one issue: Arab/Muslim refusal to accept Israel as a Jewish state. So far, their leadership have rejected any peace proposal that does not lead to either imminent or eventual destruction of the Jewish state. If what the article said was true, the Palestinian refugees would be accommodated in the same way as millions of other refugees were in the last 60 years. How many of them (or their descendants) have changed their refugee status throughout the duration of the conflict? _None_. Unfortunately, now the 4th generation of them is being forced to rot in the "camps" to play the role of pawns in the big game. Tiny Israel has accommodated hundreds of thousands of Jews - refugees from the Arab lands, but huge oil-rich Arab states cannot accommodate their Arab brothers if they really want lasting peace? It was the Arabs who started one war after another on Israel, so why not take some responsibility? --Humus sapiens 02:29, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The page has been protected by User:Dori. OneVoice 15:43, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Israeli Security Barrier

Zero0000, claims the barrier includes a trench along most of this length. No sources provided. OneVoice 12:53, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

OneVoice is lying. Not only does "most of its length" not appear in my text, my edit summary mentioned which of the links already in the article (the official Israeli government one that appears first) contains this information. Obviously OneVoice did not bother to check. Please take a look, is there a trench or not? http://www.seamzone.mod.gov.il/Pages/ENG/images/operational1.jpg While you are at it, you could look at the Haaretz diagram which also has a link in this article already: http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/images/iht_daily/D080803/4fence.jpg Is there a trench or not? After that you might ask OneVoice why he deleted my accurate summary of the current state of the ICJ hearing on the fence that took me 15 mins of research in the best sources I could find. --Zero 13:33, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

"often including a deep trench on one" Please forgive me Zero0000, I misquoted and wrote "most" in place of "often".

Thank you for pointing out to me the photograph showing a section with trenching. The Haaretz diagram does not appear to include trenching...at my age my eyes could be deceiving me. I have added back to the article that sections of the barrier include a trench.

Do you mean this edit regarding the 15 minutes of research in which Twenty countries, including the United States, the UK, Australia and France, have expressed the opinion that the problem should be solved by political rather than judicial means. According to [Walla] news agency, the 20 countries will submit the ICJ an appeal over its authority to rule over the barrier issue was deleted in preference to 44 member states of the United Nations had made submissions in addition to the Palestinian Authority and the two organizations mentioned above which does not indicate numbers in favor or against? I'll work to integrate the two without loss of information. Please help. OneVoice 15:19, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Qibya massacre

Zero0000 claims that the Jordan Army did not stop infiltrations after the massacre. This claim was in the article before my edits. Zero0000 removed it. Citations are requested for Zero0000's proposed change OneVoice 12:32, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Jerusalem

FYI: There is an ongoing edit war with User:Wik, who keeps removing entire sections regarding the importance of Jerusalem to Jews and Judaism. It is not about Israel's policies or wars anymore, the agenda is to delegitimize Jewish connection to Jerusalem. --Humus sapiens 04:53, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Media coverage of Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Not sure if anyone even reads this page. The article on the media is being turned into the "Jews control the media" disgrace. Even a paragraph on July 2003 Israel's official ban on BBC is being completely removed for (guess!) POV, and "The article does not need more". ←Humus sapiens←Talk 10:17, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

7 years later I'd have to say the above concerns are at least somewhat alleviated, a brief speedreading of the article leaves me thinking it has no worse problems than most other controversial issues on Wikipedia.Pär Larsson (talk) 00:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Issues Resolved

Thomas Hurndall

Summary: two items were involved.

1. One an error in a news report led OneVoice to report that the soldier charged with shooting Thomas Hurndall had been convicted. The report was in error. No-One Jones pointed this out to OneVoice. OneVoice agreed.
2. The soldier had been described as a sniper...a military specialty requiring advanced training. Zero0000 has replace the term sniper originally added 11:08, 6 Feb 2004 . . Mintguy (pasting content from duplicate page (to be merged)) with the term soldier.

Zero0000 had declared that he will remove all information from the news agency INN. Zero0000, has declared that INN is a "trashy pirate radio station". Zero0000 has applied the adjective "trashy" to the Yale Law school website as well as the Simon Weisenthal website and started an edit war over citations from those two sites. Is this unilateral action in accordance with Wikipedia policy. See Thomas Hurndall comment on edit dated: 01:22, 13 Feb 2004.

Arutz Sheva is an illegal radio station run by extremist settlers. The organizers of Arutz Sheva were recently sentenced to prison terms for offences that included making false statements to an Israeli court. You are all invited to visit Thomas Hurndall and judge for yourselves whether Arutz Sheva should be believed rather than a large number of respected LEGAL Israeli and international news agencies. This is typical OneVoice, what's wrong with this place that such an idiot can't be kicked out? --Zero 13:18, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hello?!? Just a little reminder: This is supposed to be an oasis. -Der Eberswalder 19:11, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Now look how OneVoice keeps reverting to his Arutz Sheva version even after I added copious citations that prove him wrong. Even the web site dedicated to Thomas Hurndall and run by his family thinks Arutz Sheva is wrong. It is perfectly clear that OneVoice knows he is wrong, but right and wrong is not why he is here. --Zero 14:08, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The website is not illegal. The sentence that Zero0000 objects to is "On February 12, 2004, the solder charged was found guilty of manslaughter and he will remain incarcerated until sentencing." Israel has a history of offshore radio stations begin with The Peace Ship of Abie Natan in the 1970's. OneVoice 14:48, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The report of conviction has been removed from the page and the page protected by User:Viajero. OneVoice 15:42, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

When you have reports from eight reliable sources in several countries and a page maintained by Hurndall's family saying one thing, with one single solitary source saying something contradictory, why do you insist that the single source has the correct version of the story? (I make no comment on that source's bias or legality, but I can tell that it's not in the same league as the AP, the New York Times, the BBC, Haaretz, etc.) --No-One Jones 18:58, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps I do not understand...do we reports that the soldier was not convicted on February 12th??? (The reports would need to be dated February 12th or later.) OneVoice 19:42, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Mirv: If by eight reliable sources you mean the external links at the bottom of the page....all predate February 12...the can not have reported on the conviction that took place February 12 2004. OneVoice 19:45, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

By "eight reliable sources" I meant these links that Zero added (and you removed twice), all of which are dated Feb. 12 or later: BBC Jerusalem Post Haaretz Maariv Guardian Agence Française de Presse Associated Press New York Times Hurndall family's page

All of these stories report that he was accused, not convicted, of manslaughter. There is a difference. --No-One Jones 20:03, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Mirv: Thank you. There certainly is a difference between accused, charged and convicted. Thank you for bringing these clearly to my attention. It seems the news report upon which I based my statements is incorrect. Thank you for correcting me. OneVoice 20:52, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Im glad you all worked it out! :) I think this AIC Oasis idea is working! Now, lets all agree not to use CNN as a website source, and well be fine. ;)

-戴&#30505sv 23:41, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

CNN?...there are a number of people who believe that CNN is rather biased. Did you mean INN? INN reported first in English, as far as I know, on both the money laundering probe against Suha Arafat and the OLAF report regarding diversion of EU funds by the Palestinian Authority to terrorism organizations. INN reports minute to minute on the details of the ongoing conflict. I know of no other news source that provide the same level of detail. They did get the Thomas Hurndall story wrong. Just like all news organizations, they will make errors in the future. At this time, I do not see any reason not cite INN. OneVoice 13:26, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

INN may be an early-breaking news source, but it seems to have a problem with basic fact-checking: the Hurndall error is one example, the flap over Refusal to serve in the Israeli military is another, and if we continue to use it, I don't doubt that there will be more. I would say use it with extreme caution; that is, if there's another source saying something different from INN, always prefer the other source, and don't take anything INN says as accurate without some kind of confirmation. --No-One Jones 13:37, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This is a prime example where someone (here, OneVoice, and next Mirv) completely missed the joke, demonstrating either a lack of humor, or an eagerness to assume a preexisting tangential point. Telling a comedian that his joke was'nt funny —when everyone who actually got it laughed—is not a nice thing to do. Levity, brevity... May the schwartz be with you. -戴&#30505sv 19:22, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)