Talk:Israeli–Palestinian conflict

What's the point of mentioning "immigrants and settlers" in the lead instead of just "settlers"?

The lead mentions "The conflict has its origins in the arrival of Jewish immigrants and settlers to Palestine in the late 19th and 20th centuries and the advent of the Zionist movement."

I propose we remove "immigrants" since it doesn't add anything here as far as I can tell. The bulk of jewish immigration during this period was part of the settlement associated with the zionist movement, not individual jewish immigrants void of zionist ideology. DMH223344 (talk) 17:37, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Done. As @Makeandtoss made the same point in "Zionist settlers" above. Also because we should also be striving for brevity in the lead of this massively complex article. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 09:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

@IOHANNVSVERVS: It just mentions immigrants rather than just settlers now, was it changed? Makeandtoss (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

[1] IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:59, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

It just says settlers. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I meant says Jewish settlers rather than Zionist? Makeandtoss (talk) 09:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Reworking of lead

Recent changes have been made to the lead which should be reviewed.

@Yr Enw, I think we can improve the wording of "surrounding national self-determination" in the opening sentence.

Also, I think a lot of the lead can be improved and better organized - something I plan on working on. Any and all input and feedback is welcome.

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 09:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. There is a discussion above. I’ll have a think. I’m not particularly keen on the word “surrounding”, but I couldn’t think of a better alternative presently. Yr Enw (talk) 15:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I should also say, as I expressed in the above discussion, we absolutely need to mention National self determination in the first sentence because the reverted sentence does not explain anything and repeats the words “conflict” redundantly. Yr Enw (talk) 15:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I changed that sentence a bit. Did you intend something specific by "national self-determination"? Selfstudier (talk) 16:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, what do you mean? Yr Enw (talk) 17:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

National self determination is a thing, usually. Did you intend it or did you mean as in "nationalist"? Selfstudier (talk) 17:42, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Either is okay, to me. Nationalism is the advocacy of national self-determination (no?), I guess the latter wording is a bit broader. but I went with national self-determination because that seemed to align with the sources cited. Yr Enw (talk) 17:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

There are different interpretations of self determination, take a look at https://www.jstor.org/stable/24675372. I would leave the national bit out unless it is explained clearly in the body. Nothing is lost by leaving it at just self determination, since nowadays everybody kind of gets that. Selfstudier (talk) 17:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

For now, I agree. And thanks for the link, I'll check it out. Although I do think we need to say something about nationalism/national self-determination, and I'd certainly welcome input from other editors on it, because that is - certainly for a lot of scholars (for eg Gelvin and Waxman) - the kernel of the conflict. Of course religion, territorialism, etc. still have their place within that. Yr Enw (talk) 18:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't have much problem with the changes as you've made them. Although I think "political and civil conflict" is a bit redundant, but I'm not that bothered as long as the essential information (ie. what the conflict is actually about - national self-determination) is there. So we'll just have to see if we get any reverts disagreeing. Yr Enw (talk) 17:40, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

What about something like this for the lead?: "The Israeli–Palestinian conflict, is an ongoing military and political conflict regarding competing claims over the territory of the former British Mandate of Palestine." (Claims can also be qualified as "national claims" or the like) Also, whether or not we should speak of "the territory of the former British Mandate of Palestine" or "the region of Palesine" may be discussed. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:51, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

What are the "competing claims"? Selfstudier (talk) 19:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I do think we need to qualify it with "national(ist)", or else it still sounds a bit ambiguous to me. Just re the last bit, I'd favour "Mandate of Palestine" over "region of Palestine" because the latter is a bit more vague, and although territorial ambitions of some nationalists in the area certainly exceed the boundaries of the Mandate, for the most part this has been the recognised extent of any state boundaries (Israeli or Palestinian) proposed in peace processes. Yr Enw (talk) 06:43, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 March 2024

I want to change add some important facts regarding the article. Facts like the latest number of casualties and loss and exact data updates 89.149.119.115 (talk) 10:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

See WP:EDITXY for guidance on how to request changes to the article. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

"transfer" as "ethnic cleansing"

@Zohariko1234 please explain the deletion of "(a euphemism for ethnic cleansing)" here:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict&curid=46216&diff=1214422981&oldid=1214201280

You mention "neutrality", but how is it neutral to omit an explanation of what "transfer" refers to? DMH223344 (talk) 15:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Particularly when the sources explicitly state that "transfer" is a "euphemism for ethnic cleansing," see discussion above at #Recent changes (or just search this page for "euphemism"). Levivich (talk) 17:27, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Big surprise there. The main article population transfer treats the topic as a type of forced displacement. "Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (adopted in 1949 and now part of customary international law) prohibits mass movement of protected persons out of or into territory under belligerent military occupation:

Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.... The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

Dimadick (talk) 17:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

@DMH223344 Claiming "transfer" is an euphemism is personal interpretation; there's no scholarly consensus on whether the early Zionists intended "transfer" to mean ethnic cleansing or not. It's possible to prove or disprove that the IDF committed such a cleansing during the 1948 war, but the interpretation of the textual works by the Zionist leadership that preceded them is not something that can be done objectively, and the wide dissensus in the relevant scholarly literature reflects that. Zohariko1234 (talk) 23:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

You'll have to provide the "relevant scholarly literature" which disagrees that 'transfer' was a euphemism for ethnic cleansing. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

there's no scholarly consensus on whether the early Zionists intended "transfer" to mean ethnic cleansing or not.

This is a strong claim, which you'll have to present strong support for. If transfer doesn't qualify as ethnic cleansing, then I wonder what you think it means.

• Wolfe 2012, p. 150: "‘transfer’ (the Zionist euphemism for removing the Natives from Palestine)."
• Shlaim 2009 pp. 55-56: "‘Transfer’ is a euphemism for the expulsion or organised removal of the indigenous population of Palestine to the neighbouring Arab countries. In today’s world, the closest equivalent to ‘transfer’ is the ethnic cleansing practised by the Serbs in the former Yugoslavia."
• Slater 2020 p. 47: "“transferred”—the preferred Zionist euphemism—out of the country, preferably voluntarily, but by force if necessary. The scholarship on transfer, especially by Israeli historians, leaves no doubt about its importance in the thinking of every major Zionist leader before and after Israel became a state.", this is in a six-page section called "'Transfer'"
• Masalha 2012 p. 28: "In the 1930s and 1940s the Zionist leadership found it expedient to euphemise, using the term ‘transfer’ or ha‘avarah — the Hebrew euphemism for ethnic cleansing — one of the most enduring themes of Zionist colonisation of Palestine."
• Pappe 2006 p. 250: "'voluntary transfer' - their euphemism for ethnic cleansing"
• From Shlaim (Iron Wall): "...“transfer” or forced deportation of Palestinians.": https://archive.org/details/ironwallisraelar00shla/page/486/mode/2up?q=deportation

DMH223344 (talk) 16:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

also page 408 of benny morris' book 1948, he refers to transfer as "what would later be called ethnic cleansing".

I think this collection is strong enough to revert your change. You'll have to demonstrate otherwise in order to delete the text again. DMH223344 (talk) 16:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Combining these sources, the clear euphemistic POV usage that they identify and the precepts of MOS:EUPHEMISM, it seems clear that the bare minimum that should be done here is the flagging or noting of the euphemistic term. That may yet be insufficient per NPOV. Since we now have sources clearly identifying the Zionist terminology of "transfer" as being inseparable with ethnic cleansing, any claim to the contrary must be supported with equally reliable sourcing refuting the same identification. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, instead of writing "transfer (a euphemism for ethnic cleansing)," I would write "ethnic cleansing (which Zionists euphemistically called 'transfer')," or something like that. Levivich (talk) 17:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I like that better as well (also I wonder if you found the above list familiar (it is something you put together :) )) DMH223344 (talk) 17:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Of course you got that from Levivich 😂 IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Gathering sources and quotes is like the only useful thing I do around here :-D Levivich (talk) 17:51, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

It's honestly extremely appreciated. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

How could Zionists have coined a euphemism for ethnic cleansing before the term itself existed? The concept of 'ethnic cleansing' only emerged in the 1990s. Accusing Zionists of using euphemisms to conceal their actions requires substantiation. While it's possible to describe their actions as 'ethnic cleansing' based on contemporary definitions, claiming that the term 'transfer' was deliberately used to obscure their intentions demands specific evidence. Fennecfoxxx (talk) 01:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Did you read the thread? DMH223344 (talk) 01:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I did. It doesn't answer my question. Fennecfoxxx (talk) 01:25, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

The thread demonstrates that this characterization comes from the literature, it is not something we have constructed ourselves. DMH223344 (talk) 02:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

The term 'transfer' might have served as a euphemism for expulsion, but not for ethnic cleansing, as the latter term didn't exist at the time. One cannot have a euphemism for a term that has yet to be established.

Nevermind, the whole thing has to be rewritten anyway. Let me get to 500 edits and then we talk. The current state of the article reads like Finkelstein's books and you seem to have contributed to it quite a lot. Fennecfoxxx (talk) 10:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

It's not for you or me to determine what is expulsion and what is ethnic cleansing—this is coming directly from the scholarship. DMH223344 (talk) 12:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

The concept of ethnic cleansing predates the exact terminology in English. Transfer is euphemism for the concept, regardless of the precise term. Expulsion is another term. Forcible displacement. "Transfer" is how money gets from one bank account to another. People who have been forced from their homes are not things; they are not pieces on a board. "Transfer" has always been euphemism. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Convo with non EC editor can terminate at this point, methinks. Selfstudier (talk) 14:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, probably. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:59, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

The Israelis actually called it "cleansing" at the time, as Morris sourced many times. Zero^talk 15:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

References

Removal of "total blockade"

@Pdhadam please explain why you've replaced the quote "total blockade" for "tightened its blockade", which is now unnecessarily vague. Here is the edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict&curid=46216&diff=1214201280&oldid=1213874446 DMH223344 (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

This is to correspond with how it's described in the lead of the Israel–Hamas war article: "In response, Israel declared a state of war, tightened its blockade and launched one of the most severe bombing campaigns in modern history, before commencing the ground invasion on 27 October with the stated objective of destroying Hamas." Pdhadam (talk) 16:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

There have been developments in the status of the blockade, so "tightening" does seem reasonable in the context of that lead. Here though we are talking about actions taken on oct 9. DMH223344 (talk) 16:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

The concerned section in this article covers the Gaza blockade as a whole, which has not been ceased or loosen in anyway since its implementation, so "tighten" is appropriate. Using "announce a total blockade" could imply that the previous blockade had been ended at some point. Pdhadam (talk) 07:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Maybe the phrasing: "On 9 October 2023, Israel declared war on Hamas and imposed a "total blockade" of the Gaza Strip. This measure was a tightening of the already existing blockade that had been in place since 2007." DMH223344 (talk) 16:26, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

casualties section

i propose to add casualties of the period between 1949 and 1956, which is the start of Palestinian fedayeen movement , 2700-5000 Palestinian were killed and 400-967 Israelis were killed. 212.34.22.8 (talk) 17:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Need a reliable source for the casualty numbers. Levivich (talk) 03:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 April 2024

Add hyperlink on first use of word "aliyah" to aliyah Wikipedia article Unrefined Gasoline (talk) 18:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: A wikilink to aliyah already exists in the article. Shadow311 (talk) 20:37, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

What is Ottoman Palestine?

The term 'Ottoman Palestine' is not widely recognized and was not an official administrative region within the Ottoman Empire. It might be more accurate to refer to this area as 'Ottoman Syria' or 'the territory corresponding to modern-day Palestine.' The term 'Ottoman Palestine' seems to be an invention of pro-Palestinian supporters, aimed at asserting a longstanding Palestinian identity. Fennecfoxxx (talk) 00:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

1. Just a quick preface to say that I don’t think editors with less than 500 edits (and accounts younger than 30 days) can make posts on Talk pages relating to Israel-Palestine, except in specific edit request formats. So, while I am not going to do it, don’t be surprised if someone just deletes this without explanation. You may have to repost it using the edit request template.

2. You’re right that Ottoman Palestine didn’t constitute a specific administrative unit, but I think “Ottoman Syria” would confuse lay readers unnecessarily, as they may not know about Syria as a region, and instead think the reference is mistakenly about the current Syrian state. The term “Palestine” was in use in the late Ottoman period, regardless of whether or not it corresponded to an administrative name used by the Ottoman government. Personally, “Hamidian Palestine” is one I would favour, as it’s more time focussed and used by a lot of scholarly historians working on the period. Yr Enw (talk) 05:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Plan to expand Israel's borders in 1947

The claim that 'Zionists accepted the partition but planned to expand Israel's borders beyond what was allocated to it by the UN' is not supported by the provided source. The source indicates that mainstream Zionist leaders considered expanding the Jewish state beyond the 29 November partition resolution borders, but this was contingent on Arab actions. As Shertok conveyed in September 1947, if the Arabs initiated war, 'we will get hold of as much of Palestine as we think we can hold.' Thus, the conditional nature of this expansion should be noted in the text. Fennecfoxxx (talk) 00:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

You'll have to address why you think the quote from Morris does not support the claim. DMH223344 (talk) 01:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I did. Please read the second, third, and fourth sentence of my request. Thank you. Fennecfoxxx (talk) 01:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

This is the quote "Second, the mainstream Zionist leaders, from the first, began to think of expanding the Jewish state beyond the 29 November partition resolution borders. As Shertok told one interlocutor already in September 1947, if the Arabs initiate war, "we will get hold of as much of Palestine as we would think we can hold." The critical condition "if the Arabs initiate war" is omitted in the article. I suggest an edit as follows: "Zionists accepted the partition but planned to expand Israel's borders beyond what was allocated to it by the UN in the event of Arab aggression." (bold text indicates the proposed change) Fennecfoxxx (talk) 01:55, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

But Morris does not state it as conditional. The sentence is: "the mainstream Zionist leaders, from the first, began to think of expanding the Jewish state beyond the 29 November partition resolution borders." DMH223344 (talk) 03:12, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Are you capable of reading more than 1 sentence? Fennecfoxxx (talk) 09:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Reminder, you are a non EC editor and the ramifications of that have been clearly explained to you on your talk page, so zip the unhelpful commentary. Selfstudier (talk) 13:31, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Morris 2001 p. 138 says Weitzmann and Ben-Gurion "saw partition as a stepping stone to further expansion and eventual takeover of the whole of Palestine." (Quoted in Sa'di 2007 p. 291.)

Morris 1998 is often quoted for this: "While the Yishuv's leadership formally accepted the 1947 Partition Resolution, large sections of Israeli [Yishuv] society — including the Ahdut Ha’avodah party, Herut, and Mapai leaders such as Ben-Gurion—were opposed to or extremely unhappy with partition and from early on viewed the war as an ideal opportunity to expand the new state's borders beyond the UN earmarked partition boundaries and at the expense of the Palestinians." (Quoted, e.g. in Masalha 2012 p. 58.)

These and more quotes are at Nakba ref 26. Levivich (talk) 02:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Your first quote refers to the Peel Commission of 1936, which is also sometimes termed a partition plan. However, it is not the same as the UN partition plan of 1947. The second quote further supports my original edit suggestion by pointing out that the war was viewed as an ideal opportunity for expansion, emphasizing the war as a precondition for such expansion. Fennecfoxxx (talk) 09:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

It might be more precise to say that they hoped to expand, and the war provided the opportunity. That's not accepting the partition, so your proposal is not correct. Zero^talk 12:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

If they saw partition as a stepping stone to expansion since 1936 then that view definitely wasn't contingent on Arab aggression in 1948. Besides, everyone expected war since at least Feb 1947 (when the British announced they were leaving), and it was the Yishuv that pushed for partition in 1947, because it was a stepping stone. In 1947 (if not earlier), the Yishuv made a secret pact with Jordan to split all of Palestine (with no Palestinian state, UN be damned). And that's just one author (Morris), there are many others, many who go further than what Morris says. Patrick Wolfe famously wrote that 1948 was "Zionism's first opportunity" to take land by force. Don't bother arguing about whether the Zionists wanted land or not because it's too well documented that they did. The goal was "as much land as possible with as few Arabs as possible" since the early 20th century if not earlier. Even Morris writes that expansion and expulsion were explicit war aims. Israel took half the land allocated to the Palestinians by the UN plan, it didn't happen by accident. Levivich (talk) 12:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

1972 Olympics

Shouldnt the history section contain bits about the Munich massacre, wreath of god bits and related stuff? Pharaoh496 (talk) 15:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)