Talk:Second Intifada/Archive 2

Clean up

Please be more specific. It is not understood what do you want to "clean-up" or rewrite. POV is hotly debated in Talk page but IMHO it is pretty NPOV as well. But since the topic is contraversial, there will always be NPOV dispute, and hence proper notice was added. The article give important and broad information about the al-Aqsa intifada - with chronology of main events, statical summaries and overview of what happens there. I think there is no other place on the web with such a detailed and organized article over the second intifada. MathKnight 23:40, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please, seeing the form of the article makes me wish Alberuni were back... its just a piece of propaganda. Read how it starts! MathKnight, you are simply playing innocent. Uffish 22:51, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Parts of it are fine, others are POV. And Alberuni is back, though editing only rarely under a sockpuppet userid. That said, he was banned for good reason; his kind of disruption does not help Wikipedia at all, and the fix for POV is not more POV. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:19, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Especially fierce battles took place at the Jenin refugee camp. 32 Palestinian militants, 22 Palestinian civilians, and 23 Israeli soldiers were killed in the fighting, while many buildings were reduced to rubble and hundreds of Palestinian explosives were detonated."

Why is the Israeli detonation of Palestinian explosives mixed in with the casualties to make the casualties look less important? This would be like writing, "Palestinian militants killed 22 Israelis and the bus and several cars nearby were severely damaged"

And I suppose you saw this happen?Scott Adler 13:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The report on explosives appear right after "many buildings were reduced to rubble". MathKnight 21:11, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

" Israeli authorities prevented the international press from entering the refugee camp for several days as rumors of a massacre swirled through Palestinian communities. "

Israeli authorities prevented the press from entering for 2 weeks.

Palestian offical accused that hundreds of Palestinians were massacred in Jenin by the IDF, citing figures of 500 up to 3,000. [1]" Palestian? Illiteracy. Misquote of article trying to blame the "Palestians". The article actually states: "Israel's own actions led credence to the myth. The Israeli army barred the international media from Jenin as its forces drove into the city. The only sources that the media then had for what was going on there were from the Palestinians themselves. And in the inevitable confusion of battle, what the great 19th century military theoretician Carl von Clausewitz called "the fog of war" applied. At the time, both the Israeli and Palestinian authorities appeared unclear what was actually happening on the ground."

"However, these allegations were later found to be false, as inquiry by both 'Human rights group and UN commission found that no massacre took place in Jenin." Illiteracy. The allegations were not false. Israel massacred 56 people inculding two dozen civilians. Human rights groups cited Israeli war crimes.

If you calling the killing of gunmen during combat a massacre, then you realy doesn't understand what that word means. You are the ONLY one insisting on a massacre in Jenin. Even the BBC report that "UN says no massacre in Jenin". Therefore, the allegations were false. MathKnight 21:11, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

" Later, a UAV photage of Palestinians staging a mock funeral was released. "

What is the relevance? Israel claims it was a mock funeral. Palestinians claim it was a reenactment. photage? illiteracy.

The relevance? Let's say is related to inflating of numbers by PA officials.

These illiterate and factually incorrect edits were reverted dozens of times by Zionist editors who would rather promote their fellow hasbara propagandists' pro-Israel POV than bother to read and edit accurately. The future of Ziopedia is at hand; Israel first, facts last.

You are poisoning the well. Don't think I don't see your insults ans swearing, entangled in your flamming attacks on me. I will let other explain to you about Wikipedia etiquette. MathKnight 21:11, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Haaretz is NOT independent

"According to independent count by Haaretz, 87 combatants and 42 non-combatants were killed. Palestinian refugee camps were heavily damaged by the Israeli assault. The IDF announched that at least 12 Qassam launchings had been thwarted and many terrorists hit during the operation. Three Israelis also were killed (1 civilian)."

Haaretz gets its info from the IDF. Don't claim that it is independent. Using the IDF mafia terminology for killing people "terrorists were hit" is not appropriate for an encyclopedia although for Ziopedia, it makes sense. --Alberuni 19:31, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wrong. Haaretz clearly stated that the count was made by its own reporters, and was reported side by side with IDF-given numbers (which were a little bit different from Haaretz count). MathKnight 21:15, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Israel is armed and funded by the US taxpayer, September 11 is the day we commemorate that fact

"On the Israeli side, the advantages of a strong economy and arms trade relations, in addition to a centralized command authority, have led to opposite tactics. The Israeli Defense Forces stress the safety of their troops, using such heavily armored equipment as the Merkava tank and various military aircraft including F-16s, drone aircraft and helicopter gunships. Sniper towers are used extensively in the Gaza Strip, and are being increasingly employed in the West Bank. Heavy armored bulldozers, such as the Caterpillar D9, are routinely employed to detonate booby traps and IEDs, and clear houses along the border with Egypt used to fire at Israeli troops, in "buffer zones", and during military operations in the West Bank. Israel has also established the policy of destroying the home of the family of a suicide bomber. "

"advantages of a strong economy," what a POV pro-Israeli crock. Israel is a US taxpayer-funded welfare state having siphoned $100 billion from the US over the past 30 years.

This is the NPOV version: "On the Israeli side, the advantages of a highly organized military force armed with U.S.-supplied weaponry is capable of massive destruction against Palestinian civilians, Palestinian Authority infrastructure and the lightly armed Palestinian militants. The Israeli Defense Forces stress the safety of their troops, using such heavily armored equipment as the Merkava tank and various military aircraft including F-16s, drone aircraft and helicopter gunships. Sniper towers are used extensively in the Gaza Strip, and are being increasingly employed in the West Bank. Heavy armored bulldozers, such as the Caterpillar D9, are routinely employed to detonate booby traps and clear houses along the border with Egypt used to fire at Israeli troops, in "buffer zones", and during military operations in the West Bank. Israel has also established a policy of destroying the family home of suicide bombers. " --Alberuni 19:36, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

À ņÖ

6 reverts in 24 hours, Alberuni

6 reverts in 24 hours, Alberuni, you're on a hot streak today. Jayjg 04:20, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Maybe you and your team should read the article for a change. --Alberuni 04:32, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Maybe if you were willing to use the Talk: pages for their purpose, rather than as a soapbox and a vehicle for abusing other editors, you would find it easier to achieve compromise. Jayjg 04:44, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If only that were true. I have tried to assume good faith with you but you just use the Talk pages to engage in your usual duplicitous sophistry to block edits that offend your pro-Israeli perspective. You are rarely reasonable and respectful with me so why should you be treated any differently? By the way, just look up a few paragraphs and you will see I did use the Talk page for its intended purpose but you ignored my efforts to make positive headway. You just revert, revert, revert. --Alberuni 04:51, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you expect when a constant torrent of abuse and soapboxing issues from your fingertips with practically every Talk: comment. Even comments that might have some valid content are also liberally larded with the same abuse and nonsense; look at the titles of the sections you created. People are simply getting sick of it, and of you, as many Talk: page comments from many editors show. If you want to achieve consensus and influence people, you're using the wrong tactics. Jayjg 04:54, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Its always my fault, of course, from your perspective. I'm well sick of you too, believe me. There's never been any hope of consensus with you and your POV buddies. Froim Day One you've been trying to harass me out of Wikipedia, as your User page said. "Block them until they move on to some other channel". You were referring to me. I don't appreciate that. --Alberuni 05:00, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think you should at least quote me accurately. My user page says "One of my important roles on Wikipedia is to protect Wikipedia from these POV warriors until they understand what NPOV is, become familiar with Wikipedia norms, and either decide they can actually work within the Wikipedia paradigm, or leave for other channels in which they can evangelize their POV." Since all the things I am fighting for are exactly what Wikipedia demands of its editors, there is nothing objectionable in my stating it. Jayjg 04:02, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Gentlemen, at the risk of stepping into the middle of a firefight, might I suggest you two step away from this for a day or so? This fight fundamentally isn't worth the energies you two seem to be putting into it. These words will not fundamentally change the nature of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As it is, and as a newcomer, the article seems as close to NPOV as it will ever get. So, I'm suggesting you guys just back away, let it go, catch up on reading, whatever. Let tempers calm and energies focus on other things. Or not, and duke out your own private Thermopylae as you will. Five 05:18, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As a neutral 3rd party here is my take: factually, the killing of the 2 Isreali reservists could be described as a "lynching". The use of this term by itself would not necessarily demonstrate a POV-bias in my opinion, as the actions of the Palestinian mob pretty well fit the definition of a lynching. However, the entire paragraph describing the "lynching" almost certainly does exhibit a POV-bias, as it describes in greusome detail the brutality of the killing. Sure, the description may be factually accurate, but it comes accross as gratuitous in the context of the larger article. To then call it a lynching on top of that is simply redundant. Here is my proposed compromise: Either remove the explicit description of the killing and simply say they were lynched by the mob, or keep the description and remove the clause describing it as a lynching. I think that would at least reduce the percieved POV-bias as well as the redundancy. Kaldari 23:18, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Silly People. You have perfected harming each other. Now you can do it virtually. Laughing at you.

Compromise suggestions

I believe that there is an element of truth to both arguments in this debate. 1) There does seem to be some POV bias in the way the killing of the 2 Israelis is described. 2) The term "lynching", however, is not innaccurate in this instance (although perhaps redundant). In an effort to reach a compromise between the 2 entrenched parties, I offer 2 alternate versions of the sentences in question. The first version uses the term lynching but removes the gratuitous description of the killing. The second version retains the description of the killing (edited down a bit for brevity) and removes the redundant lynching description. Either of these versions should be sufficiently NPOV to resolve this dispute, IMO. It will require a willingness to compromise by both parties however. As to the POV-bias in articles describing the killing of Palestinians, I would suggest bringing those concerns up in those articles rather than here. Since there is no unified editorial voice in Wikipedia, you'll have to challenge them one at a time. Complaining of a systematic policy of bias won't accomplish anything here. Anyway, here are my two compromise proposals. Feel free to comment...

An agitated Palestinian mob stormed the police station and lynched the two soldiers. The killings were captured on video and broadcast on TV, outraging Israeli public opinion.

An agitated Palestinian mob stormed the police station, beat the soldiers to death, and threw their mutilated bodies into the street. The killings were captured on video and broadcast on TV, outraging Israeli public opinion.

These versions explain the events without either whitewashing the brutality of the killings or being unnecessarily gratuitous or belaboring. Whether the word "lynch" is used specifically seems irrelevent to me.

Here is the current version of the passage for reference:

An agitated Palestinian mob stormed the police station, beat the soldiers to death, threw them out the window, stabbed them, dragged them on the road and mutilated their bodies. The killings, described as a lynching by international press, were captured on video and broadcast on TV, outraging Israeli public opinion.

Kaldari 00:08, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Amnesty International and the BBC (among others) described the killings as "lynchings" Amnesty BBC. Jayjg 03:59, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think his point is that calling them a lynching and then describing the act is redundant. Judge 'em as a lynching, which is abhorrent in and of itself, or describe the act. That's all I think he's saying, and not that calling the actions a lynching is unwarranted. (Side note: Jayjg, I tried to fixed your links. They weren't turning into links properly. The Amnesty one still doesn't. As a newb, if I've overstepped my bounds, I am sorry). Five 06:40, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, in an attempt to provide a compromise, my version left out the contested word "lynching" altogether, and instead simply described the actions, leaving it to the reader to decide if it was lynching, or a justified and reasonable killing (as Alberuni has posited). Jayjg 15:53, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Uncle Ed wades in

The term "lynching" is a loaded term. It is used to label a particular killing as unjustified. It thus takes a moral position.

Wikipedia articles do not take moral positions, for one very important reason: that is, none of us contributors can agree on moral issues; and the battles over WHICH MORAL POSITION any given article should take would be endless.

It's so much easier, therefore, to say something like:

• two reservists were killed by Arabs in the wake of blah, blah, blah.

If we want to add commentary to this, I suggest we QUOTE SOMEBODY OTHER THEN OUR OWN SELVES. Like,

• the Jerusalem post called the killings "the worst lynching since the 1930s in the US";
• the Palestine News-Free Press praised the killings as "the right lynching at the right time".

Don't get all hung up on whet TERMS to use, when describing a killing. Was it murder? Was it "extra-judicial"? Forget interpretations, because you are not writing an editorial for your hometown newspaper; you are writing an encyclopedia article which transcends time and place.

Stick to the undisputed facts. The men entered the area. They died there. (We all agree on this) Somebody killed them (i.e., it wasn't an accident). The killers were "Palestinian Arabs. (If we agree on the identity of the killers, fine. If not, we describe the dispute as "X says the killers were Arabs, while Y says the killers were Israelis or Chechnyans or Little Green Men from Mars").

Try to focus FIRST on the parts we can all agree on, would you, please? As a favor to me? --user:Ed Poor (talk) 15:49, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

Ed, the article doesn't use the word lynching, it hasn't since I took it out a week or two ago. Have you read the current version? Jayjg 20:10, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, oops! --user:Ed Poor (talk) 20:41, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

Actually Uncle Ed lynching is any killing that is done by mob violence or by vigilantes rather than state sponsored. KKK hangings are lynchings, vigilante hangings in the Old West are lynchings, etc. You need a wikictionary

operation days of penitence edits

the reference to al-durrah wasn't gratuitous. i'm not sure if it was also in any news links.

the reference is quite appropriate. the situations aren't so dissimilar as to merit repeated deletions. we could list all of the palestinian children killed as a result of a horrific military occupation, but one name (that also featured footage of a child being slaughtered by stray idf bullets) gets the point across sufficiently to people unfamiliar with the subject. we could also list references to all the families killed by suicide bombers, but, again, one (maybe two) illustrative references is sufficient.

embarrassed by the fact that either a) the idf shoots mercilessly at children or b) simply can't control the direction of their bullets?

The reference claims the attention given was similar to that given to the al Durrah incident. None of the sources provided make or support that claim. As such, it is simply an editorial. As for Muhammad al-Durrah, please read the article for the controversy surrounding his death; the case is actually quite different from the Iman Darweesh Al Hams one. Jayjg 16:39, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

do i need to find some journalist to make that association for me? if that's the case, then why don't we just make a newsbot to write these articles? most of history is editorial, or haven't you studied any? if you just list facts, then you get no substance, no understanding of the circumstances; you have to make associations between facts and incidents to help people understand them. the key on this site (or what the administrators claim to strive for) is making objective associations: NPOV; associations that do not reflect a biased point of view and will not unduly sway opinion on a controversial issue. the incidents b/t iman and muhammad are not similar; the only similarity to the events is israeli soldiers unnecessarily killing palestinian children. the association i made was to the type of criticism the IDF received as a result of the public broadcast of the footage of the events. if you pay any attention to the hebrew press, you'd have read about it, and if you read just one of the ext articles linked and the Muhammad al-Durrah article, it becomes clear to any sane, objective viewer.

and as to the muhammad al-durrah controversy, every respectable and legitimate news agency has dismissed the argument that he was killed by palestinians for publicity, including amnesty international who would have jumped on that kind of thing immediately if there was credible evidence to support it. they could accept that it was an accident, but the argument that it was staged by palestinians is absurd. it now exists only to confuse the issue.

Wikipedia summarizes the viewpoints of other sources; it is not a place for developing theses. What you describe as "mak[ing] associations between facts and incidents to help people understand them" is, in fact, the essence of insterting a POV, something Wikipedia diligently tries not to do. From Wikipedia:NPOV "Wikipedia is devoted to stating facts and only facts. Where we might want to state opinions, we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion to someone." It is your opinion that this incident received similar press to the al Durrah incident; if you have a significant source which states it that way, then we can quote that source. Jayjg 02:35, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

tell me, is marroon similar to crimson? is an orange similar to a grapefruit? are you going to try to debate the assertion that they are similar? what if you've never heard of marroon? what if you've never seen a grapefruit? if someone compares the two, won't that help you understand it? after looking at the two, and recognizing that there are differences, are you going to criticize the person who made the original statment comparing the two for not being more explicit about exactly what the similarities and differences between the two were?

The orange article on Wikipedia works just fine without mentioning grapefruit; it provides pictures of oranges and botanical information instead. Similarly, the Maroon (color) article works just fine without mentioning crimson. In your opinion it was similar to the al Durrah incident; in the opinion of others it was not. Regardless, Wikipedia is not a place for original research, but rather for quoting the research of others. Jayjg 17:44, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

David Biri's death is not part of al-Aqsa intifada

The Israeli government website does not even use the term al-Aqsa intifada (http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Memorial/2000/). It just says he died in September 2000. No evidence that it was related to the al-Aqsa intifada. The intifada is traced to Sharon's visit to the al-Aqsa holy place two days later - that's how it got the name, "al-Aqsa intifada." --ThinkPink 04:57, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

David Biri's nane appear here [2], his was murdered onSeptember 27, 2000 by Palestinians [3]. His death was the bening of violence, dubbed by the Palestinians "al-Aqsa Intifada". Israel does not use officialy that name. I think I don't need to explain why the MFA divided the list of victim of terrorism to before Septtember 27 and after it. He was the first victim of the al-Aqsa intifada. MathKnight 17:25, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your first link doesn't work. However, there are plenty of sources which list Biri as the first victim: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] etc. Jayjg 17:55, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

First victim of what? Biri's death is not part of the al-Aqsa Intifada because the intifada started after his death - after Ariel Sharon's visit to the al-Aqsa site. You see, that's how it got the name "al-Aqsa". The Israeli government propaganda repeated at the websites you list claims that the Palestinians started the al-Aqsa intifada before Sharon even visited the al-Aqsa site. Even the "Palestine Facts" source you cite and the objective Mitchell report point to Sharon's visit as the trigger for the al-Aqsa intifada. Of course there is constant violence in the area so anyone can name his own start date. We can go back to 1948 or 1917 if you want. It does no service to Wikipedia to throw Israeli government propaganda into the article. ( I am sure that won't stop you though).

• "Also on September 28, 2000, Ariel Sharon visited the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. This visit became the pretext for instigating large scale demonstrations, the start of the al-Aqsa infifada." [9]

• "On September 28, 2000, Ariel Sharon marched defiantly and provocatively through the Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, touching off the current round of violence. " [10]

The Mitchell Report:

• "Mr. Sharon made the visit on September 28 accompanied by over 1,000 Israeli police officers. Although Israelis viewed the visit in an internal political context, Palestinians saw it as highly provocative to them. On the following day, in the same place, a large number of unarmed Palestinian demonstrators and a large Israeli police contingent confronted each other. According to the U.S. Department of State, "Palestinians held large demonstrations and threw stones at police in the vicinity of the Western Wall. Police used rubber-coated metal bullets and live ammunition to disperse the demonstrators, killing 4 persons and injuring about 200."[4] According to the GOI, 14 Israeli policemen were injured.[5] Similar demonstrations took place over the following several days.[6] Thus began what has become known as the "Al-Aqsa Intifada" (Al-Aqsa being a mosque at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount). " [11]

Furthermore, in the article Terrorism_against_Israel_in_2000#August, it says Biri died in August after being attacked by "terrorists". (If Biri was an Israeli soldier in occupied Gaza, why are his attackers called "terrorists" in Wikipedia?). You need to sort out your Israeli propaganda to at least get the dates and descriptors right.

"* August 27: Terrorists attack a group of vehicles traveling to Netzarim with two roadside bombs and automatic gunfire. David Biri, age 19, is wounded.

• August 28: David Biri dies of wounds suffered in a Palestinian terrorist attack the previous day.
• September 29: Border policeman Chief Inspector Yossi Tabaji, 27, of Ramle, killed and a second Israeli border policeman wounded by a Palestinian Authority policeman on a joint patrol near Kalkiliya District Coordinating Office. [12]"

Yossi Tabaji and several unnamed Palestinian youth were also killed in the days before the "official start" of the al-Aqsa intifada because there are constant killings almost every day in the conflict. The al-Aqsa intifada is an upsurge in the violence that started after Sharon's visit to the al-Aqsa site. That is the commonly understood definition of al-Aqsa intifada. Adding stories about Israeli deaths that happened the day before is just Israeli government propaganda to deflect blame away from Ariel Sharon. --ThinkPink 19:00, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There was probably a mistake in the article. I fixed it. Biri was attacked on Sep 27 died on Sep 28. Check relevant links supplied by me and Jayge. MathKnight 19:39, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As for your other claims: there is no doubt that the riots on the Temple Mount helped fueling the flames, but as admitted by PA official themselvess - the riots have been planned earlier. The name "al-Aqsa intifada" was coined by the Palestinian and it one of the most used names for the 2000-2004 violence, but it is not the only name. The issue of rather the intifada started spontanously because of Sharon's visit to Temple Mount, or was engineered by the PA as a leverage tool is still debated and both views are presented in the article. MathKnight 19:39, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your argument is circular; you state that the Second Intifada began after Sharon's visit, and therefore any killings before it were not part of the Intifada. However, it is the start of the Intifada which is itself being debated. As well, though it criticized Sharon's visit, the Mitchell Report was quite clear that Sharon's visit was not the cause of the Intifada, vis "The Sharon visit did not cause the "Al-Aqsa Initifada."" Also, please note that I have not written these articles, that using language like "your Israeli propaganda" is inflammatory. Finally, please assume good faith; if you do, I'm sure we can work out a reasonable resolution. Jayjg 20:00, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You are copying one-sided (Israeli) material from Palestine Facts and Jewish Virtual Library [13]: "Soon after he left, outbreaks of stone throwing occured on the Temple Mount and in the vicinity, leaving 28 Israeli policemen injured, three of whom were hospitalized; no Palestinians were injured in these incidents." Other sources paint a completely different picture: "On September 29, the Israeli army increased its presence in Jerusalem and began intimidating the Palestinians. When the Muslims attempt to enter al-Aqsa for prayers they were barred and later Israeli forces opened fire at the civilian demonstrators, including children, killing 6 and wounding 220. In the first few days of the Intifada, the IDF fired about 700,000 bullets in the West Bank, and 300,000 in Gaza. In the first six days of the Intifada, 61 Palestinians were killed by Israeli forces and 2,657 were injured, many of them children. At the same time four Israelis were killed, with 35 wounded." [14]. Why are the names of Israeli soldiers like David Biri and Yossi Tabaji more important than the names of the numerous Arab civilian victims? This is a subtle form of racism where one side is humanized with names and the other is dehumanized as a faceless number of casualties. [15] --ThinkPink 21:28, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have difficulty understanding some of your objections. The information about the stone throwing on the 28th is actually an indication that the intifada was not planned (as the pro-Israel side claims), but rather spontaneous (as the pro-Palestinian side claims). As well, it indicates a buildup, and I don't see how it can contradict information about what happened on the 29th. Also, I don't believe Yossi Tabaji is mentioned in the article; where do you see his name? As for Biri, he is mentioned because Israelis consider him the first victim of the Intifada. al Durrah is also mentioned, as the most prominent Arab victim. In contrast, the names of the most prominent Israeli victims, the two reservists lynched in Ramallah, whose deaths probably had as strong an effect on the Israeli populace as al Durrah's had on the Palestinian populace, are not mentioned. Anyway, which parts do you think shouldn't be in there? Jayjg 21:47, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's just presenting a one-sided Israeli perspective to write, "outbreaks of stone throwing occured on the Temple Mount and in the vicinity, leaving 28 Israeli policemen injured, three of whom were hospitalized; no Palestinians were injured in these incidents" while ignoring "Israeli forces opened fire at the civilian demonstrators, including children, killing 6 and wounding 220. In the first few days of the Intifada, the IDF fired about 700,000 bullets in the West Bank, and 300,000 in Gaza. In the first six days of the Intifada, 61 Palestinians were killed by Israeli forces and 2,657 were injured, many of them children. At the same time four Israelis were killed, with 35 wounded." --ThinkPink 21:55, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

O.K., I took it out again. I still couldn't find any mention of Tabaji. Jayjg 22:07, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

On a related note, why use Horowitz's article as a source for the substance of the Mitchell report? Here is one site, out of many, that contains the actual report (http://www.fmep.org/documents/Mitchell_commission.html). Also, in an news article by BBC, one may read the highlights of the report (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1343320.stm). PJ 00:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Wholesale changes made by Alberuni on Nov 9

Some of the changes need proof. See [16].

• between Sep 1993 and Sep 2000, "hundreds more Palestinians were killed in political violence" -- proof?
• At Oslo, "the Palestinian and Israeli authorities committed themselves to curbing violence." -- instead of "the PLO committed itself to curbing the violence" -- AFAIK, Israel committed to the "land for peace" principle.
• Rabin was "assassinated by an Israeli opposed to the Oslo peace agreement" -- instead of "Israeli extremist" -- I find this one particularly obnoxious: typically those who merely oppose the govt policies, even in public, can walk the streets without fear in Israel. Murderous extremists (of any race/religion) are being incarcerated.

I am restoring these points. Objections? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 10:46, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Consistent naming

The name "Mahmoud Abbas" is being freely mixed with "Abu Mazer". The inconsistency is erratic and confusing; the article should pick one name and stick with it for all future references. - Keith D. Tyler [flame] 23:09, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

All fixed, I think. The article could use a lot of other work, starting with grammar. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:34, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Sharon was convinced that Abbas determined to stop terrorism"

"After Sharon was convinced that Abbas was determined to stop terrorism, he agreed to meet him at a peace summit at Sharm al-Sheikh." - This sounds rather POV? I mean, that they meant doesn't sound POV, but this implies, or rather states outright, that Sharon's maneuver was not at all political, but only based on high ethical considerations -- call me jaded, but that sounds either naive, or propagandistic.

Yes, it does sound POV, although I'm sure it was an important consideration. Much of the article contains POV. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:50, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oh, ok, I didn't read the entire article. I just looked at it again, and it does seem pretty pro-hardliner Israeli POV -- and I've seen on another discussion page about something to do with Palestinians this user below MathKnight hurling nasty and racist insults, and I see a post by him/her responding to my comment, so I'll abandon any interest in this forthwith! (I have no interest in the exchange of insults on much of any subject, and especially not this one.)

Yeah, I'd say it's rather minor. Most articles implicitly assume politicians' motives are what they say they are, unless there's evidence to the contrary. The Bill Clinton article claims he "took a personal interest in The Troubles in Northern Ireland", etc.

It don't imply that Sharon move was not at all politic, since if Abbas could not or want not stop terrorism, the all summit issue than be just a waste of time, and will be doomed to be fail. It is not only a moral consideration, but also a practical one. MathKnight 14:23, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

The bombing of the Dolphinarium club in 2002? in Tel Aviv should be mentioned as only Israeli High Schoolers were hit - which represents some of the worst Palestinian actions during this time

Basic goals

"The tactics of the two sides in the conflict are largely based upon their resources and goals. Despite the claims of both sides to the contrary, polling consistently shows that a majority of both Palestinians and Israelis agree on the same basic goals: a two state solution, established on the 1967 borders, with at least most of the settlements withdrawn, and a right for Palestinian refugees to return to the new Palestinian state."

And what planet are you living on? No one in Israel would permit the "Right of Return" any more than any Arab regime would compensate Jewish refugees. By the way, does the 1967 "Borders" include reimposition of the roadblock at Latrun? According to Arafat, it did. Scott Adler 13:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The general opinion among israelies is that the "right for Palestinian refugees to return" would be the end of Israel as a democratic and a jewish state. Among 120 representatives in the Knesset, the Israeli parliament, there are not more then five who agree with that goal. They are considered the extreme left.

A right to return to the new Palestinian state, not to Israel; I think most Israeli would agree with that. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:05, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I reworded this to "a two state solution, established on the 1967 borders, with at least most of the settlements withdrawn, demilitarized Palestinian state, dismantling of all armed Palestinian groups such as Hamas, and a right for Palestinian refugees to resettle in the new Palestinian state, without right of return into Israel." I hope this is more clear. MathKnight 20:39, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And can anyone show polls showing Palestinians supporting those goals? I doubt it... - Mustafaa 23:21, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The National Census showed 160,000 Palis and 250,000 Israeli signed on the following outline: two state solution with demilitarize Palestine and no right of return into Israel. MathKnight 09:42, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's not even big enough to be a significant minority, nor is it a poll. - Mustafaa 18:45, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I too doubt that a majority of Israeli and Palestinians support those goals. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:40, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

POV 2000

The two anon edits to the 2000 section from June 21 contain inflammatory rhetoric and do so while adding information about Israeli behavior while removing information about Palestinian behavior, all of which seem to advance a particular characterisation while removing support for other views. Take the following additions: "though much evidence was later found showing that it was not Israeli fire that killed him" and "A famous picture of a bloodthirsty Palestinian holding up his blood-stained hands in glee and triumph became a famous image of the Palestinian war of terrorism." This matched by the following deletion: "Because the soldiers were dressed in civilian clothes and one was reportedly wearing a Palestinian headdress, they were suspected of belonging to an undercover Israeli assassination squad." Before and after there are elements of apologism in the accounts of both sides, but the fundamental problem I sense is that these changes seem calculated to shift content from "he said, she said" to a condemnation of "Palestinian terrorism." Buffyg 11:40, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

All fixed. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:59, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh my god, are you saying that the Palestinian actions are not terror actions? This means that the bombings in London and the NY twin towers attack were not terror attacks either. Well, your worng. London attacks and twin towers attach were illegal actions of the people who acted. As such, Palastinian civilians who act against civilians of another country are also terror attacks. This is a FACT that these actions are terror attacks. Otherwire, we can just delete the word terror out of our vercabulary. From the Israeli point of view, it is the Israeli army who is responding to these Palastinian attack. Israel, like any other state, has the right to defend herself. Now, Israel hs not been convicted of illegal military attacks - and this is why their action are NOT terror attacks. This, unfortunatly to the Palastinians, leave only one side which uses terror for whatever reason. Do you see the diference between Israel's behavior and the Palastinian's behavior? Terror actions and Military actions. That's there all there is too it. John

Two things. One, there is enough circumstantial evidence to point towards Israel directly targeting noncombatants. Accounts from the ICRC of the IDF shelling hospitals and the demolition of homes in the Occupied Territories are two examples that spring to mind. None of these claims can be easily confirmed, though, due to Israel's reticence towards allowing outside observers into the West Bank and Gaza. Two, use of the word "bloodthirsty" is far, far, far from NPOV. Trying to characterize the Palestinians are the evil side is also far, far, far from NPOV. While it may be true that the Palestinians are the ones blowing themselves up in marketplaces, the people of Israel don't have to contend with their homes being run over by an armored bulldozer, don't have to worry about their land being seized to create armed settlements of Palestinians, and don't have to contend with two to six hours of effort to cross a checkpoint to get to work. There are many forms of terror, and not all of them involve asymmetric warfare. The point's not to judge either side, just present the facts in as open, honest, and accurate way possible. Five 23:27, 13 Aug 2005

NPOV Section

The section detailing timeline completely ignores Palestinian deaths (which was over 4 times as many as Israelis) for the most part. I noticed this after reading MathKnight's latest addition, which completely neglects mention of any Israeli killings and operations during 2005. Please keep this label, as it is appropriate, until it is made neutral by adding Israeli actions. Ramallite ^(talk) 00:06, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

American Aid to Israel

Jayjg, I disagree with your contention that mentioning the amounts of US foreign aid to Israel has little to do with the Intifada. It's that aid which makes the US an interested party in the ongoing conflict. I can see your point, in so much as removing the total amount of aid to Israel, but when we're talking military aid that hovers around 10.4% of Israel's GDP, and with all aid totalling around 13.4% of Israel's GDP, it's impossible to deny that American aid isn't a major strategic consideration for Israelis. With respect, I'm reverting with the removal of the total aid figure. Five, 21:00, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Where do you get these figures from? Military aid constitutes perhaps 1.5% of Israel's 2004 GDP of $US 129 billion, not 10.4% of Israel's GDP. American aid is certainly a higher percentage of the Palestinian GDP than of Israel's. Moreover, the American aid has no impact at all on its ability to respond to the Intifada. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

My apologies. I make a computational error, calculating the total aid sent over the course of the Intifada by one year's GDP. Math has never been my best subject. You might be technically accurate, in that the money has no direct impact on Israel's ability to respond to the Intifada, but without continued sale of arms to Israel, everthing from Hellfire rockets to M-16s to F-16s, Israel's ability to continue operations in the Occupied Territories would be hampered until Israel found a replacement. 13 billion is a big, big number, and the US's continuing support of Israel is major strategic asset to Israel and should be mentioned given that it's what entangles America in this conflict. Also, while the numbers listed here on the Talk page were way, way off, the ones on the site were dead-on, generated in a spreadsheet and coming from the citation in my edit. Five, 22:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

13 billion is a big, bug number when compared, say, to the amount of money I make. It's a tiny number compared to, say, worldwide spending on military arms. Compared to Israel's GDP it's a small amount. The U.S. is the largest arms seller in the world, but there are plenty of competitors in that market. The U.S. military aid comes with strings attached; Israel has to get the military equipment from the United States. If Israel didn't get the money from the U.S., it would simply buy the stuff from all the other eager sellers of equipment, or manufacture them itself. As well, F-16s are important in defending Israel against neighbouring countries, but irrelevant to the Intifada, since they are of no use in it. Finally, it is likely only American influence that has stopped Israel from responding more strongly to the Intifada, and has led to the current Disengagement - that influence cuts both ways. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:40, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Put it this way. In FY99, according to the wiki article about it, the IDF's budget is 8.7 billion dollars. According to the citation I posted a month ago, which is right here > [17], US military aid was 1.08 billion dollars in the same fiscal year. You can palm off overall US aid as a drop in the bucket, but the military aid is significant. Without those subsidies, an extra billion dollars would be put on Israel's tax base. Also, there's other intangibles, but those aren't worth going into. Either way, when 12.5% of your military expenditures are paid for, relieving significant fiscal pressure from your tax base (roughly 142 dollars per Israeli citizen, in quick-and-dirty numbers), maintainence of that relationship is a major tactical and strategic concern. Five, 23:05, 6 September 2005

Don't mean to pry in on a debate, and I know I can't inject OR into anything or else I'd write up a description of the F-16 bombings we've been through. However, here is an Israeli web site with photographs of Israeli Air Force targeting of Palestinians (mostly PA police stations to break their capabilities). As you can see, a lot of them were done with F-16s. This is just to clarify any misconceptions, doesn't directly have to do with your debate. Ramallite ^(talk) 02:02, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I want to add that it is NOT the U.S. aid that makes the US an interested party. It is the US's interest that makes the aid. I have signed up as a user yet, but will do so shortly.

Template

This is the Template now:

better? Toya 06:26, 16 September 2005 (UTC) I maked a mistake in the word Riots, i will fix it. Toya 09:11, 16 September 2005 (UTC) What do you think now about the template? Toya 10:12, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Leaving aside that only four of the links work (which in itself disqualifies the template), it is something that belongs in Israeli textbooks, not a worldwide encyclopedia, because it is grossly one-sided. For example, if you include the "lynching in Ramallah", you'd need to include Mohammad Al-Durra and Iman Al-Homs, as well as the killing of foreign nationals of the International Solidarity Movement, as these are equally noteworthy (regardless of how legitimate each incident is perceived to be). If you include "Shooting missiles on Sderot", then the opposing POV would be the Israeli missile strikes that destroyed many buildings (e.g. most PA police stations) and people during the first few years of the Intifada. Gilo is on West Bank land that was annexed after '67, so listing it on the "Israeli front" is POV. "Terror attacks" would open up a discussion about Israeli terror tactics, which most Palestinians believe is a daily occurrence since terrorizing doesn't always have to include death. Israeli closures, checkpoints, and the lack of freedom of movement needs to be in the template as well, since these tactics inflamed the situation exponentially. The West Bank wall is a major Intifada event that's not in the template. I could go on and on. Basically, the template just opens up a new can of worms, not to mention, again, that most of the links are broken. Ramallite ^(talk) 13:57, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, you, the Palestinians, truly claim that Gilo neighborhood is a settlement, but in fact, Gilo neighborhood is an inseparable part from Israel. Toya 17:03, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Is the template better now? Toya 17:27, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Most links are still broken, and Ramalites other comments are equally valid. The point of a template is to gather informative articles on a given topic, this one gathers mostly non-existing articles. It adds nothing but but a bunch of dead links to articles with POV-spin. --Cybbe 15:51, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

There is no problem with the template now. Gilo neighborhood is in fact an inseparable part from Israel. Toya 11:53, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Merge articles

Why shouldn't we merge Rosh Hashana Arab Assault and October Riots into this article? IMHO, there's nothing in either of them that warrants a separate article. Furthermore, this is the first time I've heard of the "Rosh Hashana Arab Assault" name (original research?), in Israeli press these events are almost always referred to as "the October Events".--Doron 06:31, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Agree. I was thinking of suggesting this myself.John Z 07:49, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:10, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

See no reason not too. --Cybbe 16:05, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea. Palmiro | Talk 23:30, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm against. It's will ruin the template! Besides, there is no problem now with these article. Toya 11:58, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, it seems like there is significant support for the merger. I shall proceed shortly by moving information to this article from October Riots and Rosh Hashana Arab Assault and make them redirects. The "Rosh Hashana Arab Assault" title is out, as it seems to be original.--Doron 14:30, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

1. The name "Rosh Hashana Arab Assault" isn't original research but isn't the common name even at Hebrew
2. I think that there articles should be merge to this article until these will be expanded
3. If you want, you could use the Hebrew articles about the riots (October Riots, Or Commission and The Chronology of October Riots)

Troll Refaim 20:45, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Citation

In the Hebrew Wikipedia it written "החדשות מהר הבית הביאו לגל הפגנות ומהומות ברחבי יהודה ושומרון עוד באותו יום" which means that the news from the Temple Mount caused in September 29 to demonstrations and riots in the West Bank. Toya 18:59, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

And what is the citation given for that claim on Hebrew Wikipedia? You can't use one Wikipedia as a source for another, you still need an outside source. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:37, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Merged!

I'll remain anonymous, i've just merged "Rosh Hashana Arab Assualt" into "Al-Aqsa Intifada. If there's anything wrong, please feel free to change it!

prior events paragraph pretty awful

Others, however, have claimed that Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Authority planned the intifada

followed by a very long quote from a guy who dissaproves of the cost of peace, apparently - now obviously a lot of people will share his views, not least on Ziopedia, but the whole passage isn't really evidence but 'begging the question'. Palestinians don't have a similar paragraph begging that the visit was unnecessary, very ill-timed and deliberately inflamatory regardless of the 'innofensiveness' of not praying etc (after all, other israeli politicians managed to stay away from the place. Perhaps they just weren't seeking to advance their careers by taking an even more far-right stance). In other words, there aren't several paragraphs arguing that 'Israelis planned the intifada', which seems an equally plausible conspiracy when you consider they're better at killing arabs than arabs are at killing jews. And, uh, you can't start an intifada by throwing stones in a mosque if your target doesn't turn up - weren't politicians on both sides begging Sharon not to visit? no mention of this either apparently.

Then there is no mention of the retaliation the Israelis carried out after the crack-team of elite youths with stones, presided over by their palestinian dignitaries, got pissed and thew shit. Weren't some palestinians killed? I wouldn't know but that's just because I read wikipedia too much.

So here's a radical suggestion, and one editors would no doubt find highly inconvenient and an infringement on their wikifreedom. But here's the suggestion anyway: every time you copy and paste half a book of very uncompromising rhetoric supporting your POV into an article like this, research the opinions of your opponents and set aside a sentence or two for them. They aren't proportionally represented here, god knows whether this is because their computers have been bulldozed or they're simply driven away by the shoddy state of all the articles on the middle east. They're reliant on those with all the power to be a bit more magnanimous. --212.85.15.87 11:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

First of all, sorry about my English. If the paletinians use stone why do you think that Israel shoud endanger its soldiers? Shoud they throw stones back like the paletinians? second israel uses weapons against the armed not against children... however if u really insist upon it u can find exception deeds. And u said "youths with stones", shoud youths carry stone. Another very important thing, Israel DOES NOT kill innocent intentionally in contrast with the palestininans terrorist. How many Israeli terrosit do we see? & how many palestinians?

One of the Hebrew Wikipedia

One could always argue that the soldiers shouldn't be there in the first place, then they wouldn't get stoned. Anyway, your point is well taken, but it is one sided, and on Wikipedia we must describe both sides in a neutral fashion. I think there are many sources (including Israeli sources) that say that Israel does kill innocent Palestinians. I also think 212.85.15.87 above is trying to say that you cannot cut and paste a one-sided article without pasting an article from the other side. In fact, cutting and pasting articles is normally forbidden, it is a copyright violation. Always try to bring both sides the best way you can. Ramallite ^(talk) 16:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I read your User page, it is seemd like u hate all the israelis, jews, zionists & probably me too as an israeli. However I don't hate arabs & i thing that the goverment does the best it can to avoid innocent death. the most imortant thing is that the Israeli army doesn't kill innocent Palestinians intentionally.

One of the Hebrew Wikipedia

"it is seemd like u hate all the israelis, jews, zionists & probably me too as an israeli"

Then sorry, you did not read my user page properly. Ramallite ^(talk) 17:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Flagged with {NPOV} since nobody has managed to balance out this problem since it was mentioned here many months ago

al-durrah

Now that independent French reporters have seen the complete al-Durrah tape, it is clear that it was created as a propaganda movie. French Channel 2 no longer defends it. Whether Palestinian filmmakers killed a real child, or created a martyr out of nothing, it is clear that no Israeli had anything to do with what the French now call the Netzarim Affair.

As a forensic journalist and a graduate of the most respected film school in the world, I could tell from the very first that the shot was too neat. Things are never so perfect in the real world. Now that the story has been thoroughly investigated and found wanting, partisans of the Palestinian cause should let this one go. The more they hang onto this one and other myths, the more they embarrass their own cause.

Would you be as so kind to cite a source? Five (05:38, 24 December 2005)

Clean Up

Just finished a minor clean-up of the article. I worked on some NPOV, flow, consistency, and redundancy in the article. Some advice, as far as citations go: don't rely solely on editorials as proof of claims. Editorials are opinion pieces, not hard fact. For instance, citing a Charles Krauthammer piece as reliable fact isn't good form. There are still some flaws in the article that I don't have the time to work out. I should finish a complete revision and rework of the article at some point on the 26th. Five (05:38, 24 December 2005)

Removal of pictures

I removed all but two pictures, they are all too POV, and people are just going to keep adding them on both sides, so I think it would help the article to just take the ones the demonstrate a particular POV out of the aritlce. If possible then I think we should replace them with pictures that are somhow more NPOV.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

hatred is a POV word, and bias is more accurate

What does it mean, bias is more accurate? They teach how to hate, not how to "bias". The results of that hatred were all over Israeli streets, busses, discos and restaurants. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. And it is POV to assert that "hatred" is the appropriate term; just as the assertion that "terrorist" is more accurate than "militant". If the curriculi teach that Israel is an occupier, that is not hatred. None of the articles that are included in the list of references use the word hatred in reference to teaching students or curriculum (not even the biased ones). Teaching that "occupation" should be "resisted", for example, is not hatred. It is incorrect and POV to characterize the Palestinian anger at Israel as simply racist "hatred". Lokiloki 09:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's see what others say. I didn't go through all of the links. Here's one: Palestinians Still Train Their Children to Hate and to Murder - this is from a page you tried to remove. Don't expect you can wrestle you POV by edit wars. BTW, you reverted to a broken link that I already have fixed. This is to remove it as "broken" later? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Even a quick glance at that site, and its main site, will reveal that it is a right-wing POV site. And while such sites are apparently "okay" as references, it is inappropriate to use their biased articles as sources for headlining your topics. I will now find the several editorials, etc, that I have read of Israeli settlers teaching their children to hate Arabs... Lokiloki 09:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes Loki, your right that it's not exactly hate per se to teach the children that Israel is and occupier, however this is not the only thing they teach them. It is hate when they are taught the all Jews are evil by nature, or that Jews rule the world by proxy, or that.... I could go on a lot lonmger but that is unneccesary.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is a neutral website which presents translated excerpts from an official PA schoolbook advocating matydom and Jihad [18], [19].- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay... I will look for the various articles/editorials I have read from/about settlers and their similar "hate" teachings; there is already quite a bit of talk about bias teaching in other articles, and, since this is about the 2nd intifada, I am unclear why we are simply providing links here. If we do that, I will provide additional facts to the links section qualifying why such passages appear in the Pal textbooks. Why are these in the 2nd intifada page? Can we agree to only argue about the facts that are relevant to the specific article we are editing... we could rehash every aspect of the Is/Pal/Arab conflict in every article related to it, but surely it is better to apply Occam's and reduce to the core facts? Lokiloki 10:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about? show me where I put these links in the article. I'm making a point on the discussion page because you decided to dispute something and I'm showing you evidence that you may be mistaken.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 11:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I am saying that the links themselves to Palestinian education are not relevant to this article. Lokiloki 11:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Once again I wasn't going to put them in the article, you were the one that said Pal schoolbooks didn't advocate hatred, I'm providing sources for you to refute that claim.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 11:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

So you are saying you are just arguing with me for the sake of arguing, and that this has no bearing on the article at hand? If so, can we just not argue? ;) Lokiloki 11:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Well no not exactly, I'm advocating putting in something like "Accusations of indoctrination in Palestinian schools" or somthing.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 11:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Ext. links

For years and months before Lokiloki and I joined this project, editors worked hard to achieve compromises and keep the number of ext. links in controversial articles about the same for the sides. Today. Lokiloki made several attempts to remove the links that don't serve his/her political agenda. Failing that, s/he added anti-Israel links into Non-Categorized and about doubled Pro-Pal section: [20]. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Hm. After my edits, there are 18 pro-Israel links, and 17 pro-Palestinian links. Before my edits, there were many more pro-Israel links. So I really don't see how my providing more external links to balance the pro-Israel links is problematic.

I believe the links I added in Non-Cat were neutral: if you feel not, please let me know which aren't, or move them to Pro-Is or Pro-Pal. I removed links that didn't work and which I couldn't immediately find links for. I indeed added many more Pro-Pal links, given the large number of Pro-Is links (including the ones about the bias taught to Pals). I do not feel that adding links is somehow insulting the work of prior editors.

Lokiloki 10:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see. The section "Claims of biased Palestinian education and child suicide bombers" is counted as Pro Israel. And I thought (silly!) that it is not good for Palestinian children to become suicide bombers. Thank you very much Lokiloki for making it clear that suicide bombers are pro-Palestinian. Bravo! ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

That is a sub-topic that falls underneath the pro-Israel side if you look at the editing. I did not add it underneath the pro-Israel side, though it clearly does belong as whoever the original editor has indicated. They are Israeli CLAIMS of Palestinian BIAS and indoctrination of "child suicide bombers". Such can accurately be placed, as they were before I even touched this, under the pro-Israel side. Or would you prefer we split everything out, so we can have a section on, say, "Israeli checkpoint abuses", and "Israeli destruction of Pal property", and "Israeli settler terrorism", etc etc?

I take your sarcasm as personal attacks and I request that you cease such personal attacks forthwith.

Lokiloki 11:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Not, this not about your person but rather about the content.

So the Palestinian "child suicide bombers" are just a claim, IOW, a fantasy?

I was saying all along that Anti-Israel is not necessarily Pro-Palestinian and vice-versa. That is why it is proper to have a separate section. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Please re-read what I wrote. Your sarcasm is not appropriate.

Lokiloki 12:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Come on I didn't think that last post was really sarcastic.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Labaneh Loki your are wrong. Bias connotates a willing point of view. "Etbach El Yahud" (Butcher the Jews) is not a bias, it's a call for Murder. Furthermore, Islamofascist points of view are forced upon Palestinians by violence if they do not adhere to it. Anyone with a different point of view is considered a traitor and is executed, usually without trial, leaving little room for bias. Unadulterated hatred is not biased it is abhorrent and calling it anything but would be a farse. If you need categorical proof, I'm sure we can dig up a few Palestinians to agree, but I'd rather just get this moving because we all know they teach hatred and that as a Palestinian sympathizer, you are merely looking for a euphemism to support their cause...ahem.

October 2000 riots

Can Moshe... explain why he removed all mention of the Israeli rioting [21], despite it being an enormously significant event that contributed to the violence and was mentioned in the Or inquiry?

In response to the Arab Israeli riots, thousands of Jewish Israelis rioted in Nazareth and Tel Aviv, throwing stones at Arabs, destroying Arab property and chanting "Death to Arabs" . Two Arabs were killed in the violence and Haaretz editorialized that that year's "Yom Kippur will be infamous for the violent, racist outburst by Jews against Arabs within Israel" .

The Or Inquiry - Summary of Events. Haaretz, Tuesday, September 12, 2000. Accessed April 8, 2006.

Anti-Arab riots spark Israeli soulsearching. BBC, Wednesday, 11 October, 2000. Accessed April 8, 2006.

Deuterium 07:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Uncited information

As I pointed out previously, the October riot section is full of uncited information. Why were the fact tags deleted? Deuterium 07:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

as i wrote in summary, citation needed folowed by reference looks stupid! --tasc 07:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

What reference? Deuterium 08:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

don't you see them? I've reverted your edits for following reasons: 1.you lying misguiding readers. the reference you've provided nowhere states what you've wrote in the article! 2. your tags are NOT needed there. there is

enough reference in the section. --tasc 08:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I am NOT lying; you are. That is a serious allegation. My references do absolutely support what I wrote.

Ok, you're misguiding readers. --tasc 08:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

How so? --Deuterium 08:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

See below. --tasc 08:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

And the two measly references already in the section do not support the following dubious and pointed statements whatsoever:

"They claim that Arabs "used the visit as an excuse for the violence that the Arabs planned to carry out after the failure of the Camp David summit in July, 2000" Some Palestinian officials admitted this claim"

There is a reference to the prior events section! go and read. --tasc 08:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Not good enough. It needs to be cited right there. --Deuterium 08:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Not needed. --tasc 08:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

"The killings were captured on video by an Italian TV crew and broadcast on TV; the picture (to the right) of one of the lynchers waving his blood-stained hands from the window, shocked and outraged many around the world, and became another iconic image"

So what is wrong with that? there is a link to bbc news! --tasc 08:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Where does it say "the picture (to the right) of one of the lynchers waving his blood-stained hands from the window, shocked and outraged many around the world, and became another iconic image"? --Deuterium 08:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

so what exactly are you questioning? That those pictures proved palestinians peaceful inteniton? --tasc 08:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

"The committee also blamed Arab leaders and Knesset members for contributing to inflaming the atmosphere and making the violence more severe."

There is internal link to or commision report. go and read! --tasc 08:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, this needs to be cited there. Deuterium 08:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

No it's not needed. --tasc 08:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Stuff like this needs to be cited. Deuterium 08:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)Deuterium 08:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

It is cited!!!!!! --tasc 08:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Also, you didn't respond about my additions. Deuterium 08:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is. Your additions are false. Thousands of Jews participate in violent acts against Israeli Arabs. In the Hatikva neighborhood in Tel Aviv, three apartments belonging to Arabs are set on fire. Hundreds of the neighborhood’s residents confront police, chanting “death to the Arabs.” is not the same what you have written in the article.--tasc 08:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Edit war

I don't see how previous discussion might be considered over. Why on earth edit war is started? --tasc 08:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I cannot understand you. Is English your first language? Deuterium 09:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

no it's not, is that your problem? --tasc 09:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Deuterium, I do not see problems with Tasc's English. Why do you request citations for already referenced text? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Because the he following highly dubious information is completely uncited.

"They claim that Arabs "used the visit as an excuse for the violence that the Arabs planned to carry out after the failure of the Camp David summit in July, 2000" Some Palestinian officials admitted this claim"

"The killings were captured on video by an Italian TV crew and broadcast on TV; the picture (to the right) of one of the lynchers waving his blood-stained hands from the window, shocked and outraged many around the world, and became another iconic image".

This text is not adequately referenced at all. Deuterium 09:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Why on earth are you repeating yourself? they are cited! as pointed in previous section of talk page. --tasc 09:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Deuterium, it seems you somehow missed the famous quote by Imad Falouji (also spelled Faluji). ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but that is 1 Palestinian offical not "some"; and the footnote should be repeated. Perhaps you do not understand how citations work. Also you have said nothing about the other other sentence which claims people were "shocked and outraged around the world" and that became "another iconic image". If you insist on removing the fact tags, I will be forced to remove the unverified information.

Also, this section is full of weasel words. "Some people claim"? Which people? Deuterium 13:30, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Changes

My changes are summarized in the histories. The information I removed is flat out wrong and uncited. There was no "international reaction of shock and outrage"; Only 1 palestinian offical was accused of admitting to a plan. And how can "some Jews" be assigned a direct literal, uncited quote? Please discuss this before reverting further, JayJG. Deuterium 15:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

You removed a direct citation and direct quotes under the dubious claim that the source was "not reliable". In addition, you've violated 3RR again. Please revert yourself post haste before you are blocked. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Ridiculous dollar numbers

>Israel annually receives 1.2 billion dollars in economic aid and 1.8 billion dollars in military aid from the United States, excluding loan guarantees

This must be a joke, they get that much a month! Weapons alone are 10billion+ USD a year. Honest correction is needed.

Also the article pretends it is I don't know what huge crime against humanity that palestinians are importing small arms via seaships which the zionists pirate often. The palestinians have the natural right to conduct armed struggle against israeli occupation of arab lands and the establishment of their own state via national liberation war. Therefore they import arms, that is natural. Sorrowfully without modern RPG and shoulder SAM they are unable to effectively counter the jewish fighting machinery on land and in the air. I hope one day the world will donate as much arms to the palestinians as the jews get and then see the fight decide on the battlefield. The arabs will fight fiercely they did with Commander Lawrence. Sorrowfully the whole world, even Europe since the Merkel zionism takeover is at the feet of zionists and thrown many weapon stocks at them so they can suppress the palestinians with firebomber. The great assymetry is the cause of suicide bombings, arabs have no weapon left but self-sacrifice. 195.70.32.136 20:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

please, leave aside political propaganda and talk about the article. You don't like figures in the text? you could provide some reference for 12-folds bigger number for the beggining. -- tasc ^talk_deeds 20:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Forged Image?

The photo of the Palestinian being stripped looks quite a forgery to me. I'm an Israeli and I've followed the events quite steadily. I believe if it was true I would have heard/seen it. Can anyone confirm this really happened? -- A.L

Would NAD-PLO ever engage in a lie? With history of claims of Israel poisoning wells, booby-trapping toys, using depleted Uranium bullets, Jenin massacre, infecting Palestinians with AIDS. I think the image can be safely deleted, as not coming from a WP:RS. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The NAD said all this? Are you sure? Ramallite ^(talk) 15:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Images

Is there a reason why there are only three images in this article? The Hebrew wikipedia has about a dozen. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 00:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Ending

Does someone think this Intifada has ended? (no more Palestinian popular uprising can be seen...)--TheFEARgod 15:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad al-Durrah

Is it not a war crimes to shot 12-year old boy who was defenceless? It is one of the cowardly war crimes a war criminal can do. Killerman2 09:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Your condemnations are misplaced. In fact, Hamas/PIJ/etc. target innocent Israeli civilians, including children - in buses, cafes or discos, the more the merrier. The IDF does not target innocent Palestinian civilians. Follow the link Muhammad al-Durrah and read reputable sources. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Citation Needed

From Tactics, Israel --

Families have provided timely information to Israeli forces regarding suicide bombing activities in order to prevent the demolition of their houses, although families doing so risk being executed or otherwise punished for collaboration, either by the Palestinian Authority or extra-judicially by Palestinian militants.

This must be cited explicitly. Firstly, this passage implies that it is a regular occurance that Palestinians inform the IDF, and it also implies that Palestinians are routinely executed by the PA for doing this. It's irresponsible to put something like this up without sourceing the information. Another thing is I would like to hear some arguement for why this is even relevant to the topic of Israeli tactics. Bulldozing homes definately is, but what Palestinians do to 'collaborators' has only auxillary significance for Israeli tactics. If proper sources can be found this will have to be incorporated into Palestinian tactics.

Azymuthca 05:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)