Talk:Israeli–Palestinian conflict

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

Former good article nomineeIsraeli–Palestinian conflict was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 19, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
In the newsA news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on March 30, 2002.

Scope of article / Beginning of conlict[edit]

Can this conflict really be said to have begun on May 14th 1948?, making the first half of the Palestine War only background?

It seems like saying the Israeli-Palestinian conflict began only with the declaration of the State of Israel is a too literal interpretation of the word "Israeli" in the title, and is quite arbitrary.

Either there should be a broader article about the "Arab-Jewish Palestine conflict" (or just the "Palestine conflict") or this article's scope/beginning should be expanded to include the entire history of the conflict. I support the latter option, especially considering the fact that this article already covers all the history pretty thoroughly - much of the information will just have to be moved from "background" to "history" and the infobox date changed. I also doubt there are many reliable sources about the conflict which take May 14th, 1948 as the beginning of the conflict.

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the infobox date, "mid-20th" in the lead, etc., should be changed to match the "late 19th/early 20th" stated elsewhere in the lead and the body, which I think is supported by, e.g., these sources:
My take-away is 1881-1917 is the range, so "late 19th/early 20th". Levivich (talk) 04:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Starting point for the IP conflict is 1948, or 1921. However, as pointed out, this doesn't negate that there is a background to this conflict since 1881, as demonstrated in RS. So this should be all-encompassing. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you say that?, and what is the significance of 1921? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:42, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to implement this change, but obviously not without consensus. Do you feel strongly about your opposition, @Makeandtoss? Levivich provided multiple RSs to support my proposal so it seems within reason to consider making that change. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:47, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Levivich on this although obviously there was no "Israeli" component until 1948. Selfstudier (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input. I'd like to implement this change, but will again ask @Makeandtoss: Could you discuss this further so we can reach a more complete consensus? I don't understand the basis of your objection nor how strongly you feel about your objection. Thanks, IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should we consider renaming the article? Morris uses "Zionist-Arab conflict" for example which is more accurate. "Jewish-Arab Palestine conflict" or something like that could also work. That being said, if RS refer to it as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict even though technically "there was no "Israeli" component until 1948", we have to follow RS - Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The majority time wise is now IP, whereas the former period is more by way of lead-in/context. We have Arab Israeli conflict similarly. Selfstudier (talk) 15:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean here. Are you in favour of changing the scope/timeline or leaving it as is? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:01, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I agree with Levivich on the timeline, and yes the current RS go with IP, like or not. Selfstudier (talk) 20:05, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Think it would be appropriate to implement this change? I hesitate since it's rather drastic. But there's a decent consensus here and based on RS. The only dissenting voice hasn't participated or given reasons. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm obviously in favor. Levivich (talk) 20:22, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Implemented ✅ - IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:40, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned before saying IP conflict in the period before 1948 is weird. So the obvious solution is to keep the scope 1948-now; but with the consideration that everything before 1948 until something around 1880s as background. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@IOHANNVSVERVS: It just mentions immigrants rather than just settlers now, was it changed? Makeandtoss (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[1] IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:59, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It just says settlers. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I meant says Jewish settlers rather than Zionist? Makeandtoss (talk) 09:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Change of scope/timeline[edit]

The article's scope/timeline was changed per this dicsussion.

The beginning of the conflict was changed from being "May 14 1948" to "Late 19th/early 20th century".

The implementation of this change should be reviewed to make sure that all relevant details were changed accordingly. Other articles have also likely been affected, such as the Timeline of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for example, and should change to accord to this new timeline. The Arab-Israeli conflict should remain the same as it began with the start of the First Arab-Israeli war on May 15 1948.

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reworking of lead[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I changed that sentence a bit. Did you intend something specific by "national self-determination"? Selfstudier (talk) 16:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, what do you mean? Yr Enw (talk) 17:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 March 2024[edit]

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)[reply]

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

"transfer" as "ethnic cleansing"[edit]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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:[1]

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Of course you got that from Levivich 😂 IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gathering sources and quotes is like the only useful thing I do around here :-D Levivich (talk) 17:51, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's honestly extremely appreciated. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.Commentary on Part III : Status and treatment of protected persons #Section III : Occupied territories Art. 49 Archived 2006-05-05 at the Wayback Machine by the ICRC

Removal of "total blockade"[edit]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

casualties section[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 April 2024[edit]

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

 Not done: A wikilink to aliyah already exists in the article. Shadow311 (talk) 20:37, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israeli–Palestinian_conflict&oldid=1219331549"