| Revision as of 22:13, 8 October 2008 editJaakobou (talk | contribs)15,880 edits →New Article (on the "Belligerent" Comoros Islands): +← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 12:05, 11 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,307,825 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Arab–Israeli conflict/Archive 11) (bot |
| (750 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Talk header|search=yes}} |
|
{{talkheader}} |
|
|
{{controversy}} |
|
{{Controversial}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|collapsed=yes|vital=yes|1= |
|
{{Calm talk}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Arab world|importance=High}} |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
{{WPARAB|class=start|importance=High|nested=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Asia|importance=High}} |
|
{{WikiProject Palestine|class=start|importance=High|nested=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Palestine|importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Notice|Arab-Israeli conflict|nested=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Israel|importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Jewish history|nested=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Egypt|importance=high}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration}} |
|
{{WPMILHIST |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Jewish history|importance=High}} |
|
|class=Start |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject History|importance=High}} |
|
<!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Military history |
|
|B-Class-1=yes |
|
|
|
|class=B |
|
<!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |
|
|
|
|B-Class-1<!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. -->=yes |
|
|B-Class-2=no |
|
|
<!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |
|
|B-Class-2<!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. -->=yes |
|
|
|B-Class-3<!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->=yes |
|
|B-Class-3=yes |
|
|
<!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |
|
|B-Class-4<!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->=yes |
|
|
|B-Class-5<!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->=yes |
|
|B-Class-4=yes |
|
|
<!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |
|
|
|B-Class-5=yes |
|
|
|Middle-Eastern-task-force=yes |
|
|Middle-Eastern-task-force=yes |
|
|old-peer-review=yes |
|
|Cold-War=yes |
|
|nested=yes |
|
|Post-Cold-War=yes |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject International relations|importance=High|un=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=High|Interfaith=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Islam|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Judaism|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject British Empire|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|terrorism=yes|terrorism-imp=High|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Human rights|importance=Top}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}} |
|
|
{{USPP assignment}} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|
|target=Talk:Arab–Israeli conflict/Archive index |
|
|
|mask=Talk:Arab–Israeli conflict/Archive <#> |
|
|
|leading_zeros=0 |
|
|
|indexhere=yes}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 120K |
|
|
|counter = 11 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 6 |
|
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:Arab–Israeli conflict/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{archivebox|auto=yes}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== adjectives == |
|
|
|
|
|
wow this article is so jewish it's not even funny. can someone please make this statement less jewish before someone finds out wikipedia is really run by the jehws? |
|
|
|
|
|
The Israeli Air Force (IAF) destroyed most of the surprised Egyptian Air Force, then turned east to '''pulverize''' the Jordanian, Syrian and Iraqi air forces. |
|
|
|
|
|
we don't need to say pulverize now do we? might as well say "kick their butt" <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 14:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
:This article is as neutral as such a topic can be, and as such the neutrality should no longer be in dispute. While the word "pulverize" is a loaded word and may show bias, the article also says the Arab forces "overwhelmed" the Israeli military, therefore equally strong statements are used to describe victories by both forces. To expect perfect neutrality to both sides in the description of a war is ridiculous, and while we should strive for perfection we must also realize it isn't going to happen. You could rewrite this article 100 times and each time there would be people objecting to the wording of parts of it. As such I believe the neutrality of this article is fine and should no longer be in dispute.] (]) 05:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== New Article ''(on the "Belligerent" Comoros Islands)'' == |
|
|
|
|
|
Can we please have a new article to highlight the serious threat from the "belligerent" ] toward poor little Israel? ] (]) 12:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Replacing this because in a way, this apparently ridiculous suggestion provides a perfect perspective on the POV-pushing in the article and thus is a relevant addition to this discussion. The David vs Goliath map used atop the article is wholly inappropriate and misleading. I ask editors -- who is more involved in the Arab-Israeli conflict, the United States or the Comoros Islands? By the way, the editor who removed 221's question is wrong, the article does list Comoros Islands as a "belligerent." Suggest adding the United States to the map. ] (]) 08:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Nowhere does the article mention the Comoros Islands. The only mention of it was added by the very same anon editor who commented about it above, an addition which was essentially vandalism, and I promptly removed it. Basically, he added a section about them, and then complained about it in the talk page. |
|
|
::Don't feed the trolls. |
|
|
::Regarding your point - the Arab league is officially in conflict with Israel, which is why Egypt was kicked out of the league after signing the peace treaty with Israel 1979. This is the policy they set, and so the map is appropriate. The US never fought in Israel's name, and US forces have never defended it against Arab attacks. By your logic, we also need to have the USSR/Russia highlighted in green, as the main arms supplier of the Arab world (the same part the US plays for Israel). By the way, Russian forces have fought on behalf of the Arab states, mainly Russian pilots assisting the Egyptian air force. ] (]) 12:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The POV David vs Goliath map and infobox very clearly present the "belligerents" as the "Arab Nations" on one side and "Israel" on the other. Click on "Arab Nations" and voila, the menacing Comoros Islands are listed. ] (]) 03:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::That's the meaning of the Arab League. They're all in conflict with Israel, by their own choice. ] (]) 05:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Ok, ] you say the Comoros are belligerents because they are in the Arab League and "That's the meaning of the Arab League." I didn't see that definition in the WP entry on the ]. Can you direct me to where I can find out about the Comoros as belligerent? Thanks.] (]) 11:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Not, belligerency is not that meaning of the Arab league. But the league has passed many, many, resolutions against Israel. For instance, when Egypt signed the peace treaty with Israel 1979, its membership of the league was suspended for it. As such, all members of the league are part of the Arab-Israeli conflict. ] (]) 12:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I see. Well, the United Nations has also passed "many, many resolutions against Israel", so shall we list the entire world as belligerents? The map would look even more dramatic! ] (]) 13:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::No, the UN passed some resolutions which recommend Israel take some action, which Israel doesn't like, or condemn it for action it did take. The Arab league was and still is an active and willing participant in the conflict. See, for another example, the ] (also ). Also, - "...extending "a hand of peace" on behalf of the Arab world." ] (]) 14:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: Note to okedem: Egypt was suspended from the League in 1979, but they have long ago been restored as a member in good standing. Jordan was never kicked out. All this is clear from the very USA Today article you just provided us. The Arab League has two members, Egypt and Jordan, which are widely recognized as being at peace with Israel. Hence it is wrong to just treat every country in the Arab League as a "belligerent", membership in the League being sole qualtification. RomaC is exactly right, the map misleads the reader and must go. ] (]) 18:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::], I strongly support your contention that the misleading map must go for the reasons you cite. ] (]) 03:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Update info in the Template == |
|
I agree: the map should go. The Arab League is definitely not an entity at war with Israel. The map fails to show that there are several members of the League with full diplomatic relations with Israel, namely Jordan, Egypt and Mauritania, whereas Qatar has trade relations (http://en.wikipedia.org/Foreign_relations_of_Israel#Arab_states). In addition, several other members, even when they don't recognize Israel, are not belligerent: "In October 2000, Israeli diplomatic missions in Morocco, Tunisia and the Sultanate of Oman were closed as these countries suspended relations with Israel" (http://en.wikipedia.org/Foreign_relations_of_Israel#Diplomatic_relations), that means they had certain friendly relations before. Morocco, for instance, has never advocated war against Israel and its king Mohammed VI (among many other gestures) met in Morocco with Acting Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben Ami in Sept. 2000 (http://www.pmo.gov.il/PMOEng/Archive/Current+Events/2000/09/Speeches419.htm). You don't do this when being at war. So I vote for the map to be thrown out, more so when it reads "Early 20th century-present". ] (]) 16:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the Israeli side, |
|
What's more: I just found a wikipedia entry which states clearly "According to Israeli law, Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Yemen and Iran are considered "Enemy countries"" (see ]). So the rest are obviously not enemy countries, according to Israel, and shouldn't appear on the head of this page. Please remove. ] (]) 18:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are over 5,000 Israeli civilian victims. |
|
:This article is about the Arab-Israeli conflict since it's early days and not about the conflict as it is now-days. Please review the article and note the role of the Arab League in the conflict. The same league was quite active even recently, trying to suggest that Mubarak should be assassinated because he would not attack Israel together with Hezbollah. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 20:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
Only in 1947-2022 over 4,200 Israeli civilians were killed, not including over 800 Israeli civilians were killed in 2023. |
|
|
Showing less than 1,800 Israeli civilians were killed is misleading. ] (]) 16:27, 1 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the Arab side, the most recent estimate of Arab deaths in the Israel–Hamas war is 186,000. Source: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(24)01169-3/fulltext <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:57, 21 September 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
::Erm, when did the Arab League recently call for Mubarak's assassination? I'm ready to be surprised, but it would be quite a big one. And actually of course, while you are right that this is an article about the conflict as a whole, equally there is a separate article for the ]. --] (]) 21:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:The 186,000 number is not 'the most recent estimate of Arab deaths in the Israel–Hamas war'. It is a projection based on a various assumptions. ] (]) 08:05, 22 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Subset == |
|
:::I thought the time-line for the declaration was clarified in my comment. However, upon further examination, it was the Arab Lawyers Union who made that call on Al-Jazeera (calling him al-Khana and suggesting he's fair game) and not the Arab League - my apologies for the error. I appreciate the link to the history article, btw, but it's existence doesn't mean that this article is narrowed down to the current status of the conflict - it is an article made so that we can keep this article from becoming too complicated and long (see: ]). <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 22:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{ping|Parham wiki}} What argument are you basing this claim on? The Israeli-Palestinian conflict dates back to early 1900s, meanwhile first instance of the Arab-Israeli conflict came later around 1920. Also, Jordan and Egypt making peace with Israel clearly hasn't solved the IP conflict. ] (]) 13:24, 26 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Questions on Wiki Style and this article == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Palestinians are Arabs, not Arabs are Palestinians. Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the core of this conflict. ] (]) 04:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
], or someone, can you tell me, the following sentences -- are they ok? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Portugal involvement? == |
|
"During the Gulf War, Iraq fired 39 missiles into Israel, in the hopes of uniting the Arab world against the coalition which sought to liberate Kuwait." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
can anyone let me know what was Portugal's involvement in the conflict? ] (]) 10:28, 12 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
"In July, 2006, Hezbollah fighters crossed the border from Lebanon into Israel, attacked and killed eight Israeli soldiers, and kidnapped two others, setting off the 2006 Lebanon War which caused much destruction in Lebanon." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Double check death toll source? == |
|
Cheers! ] (]) 11:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not too harsh on me if this is an obvious non-issue. |
|
:No comments after a month, inclines me to believe that the involved editors here see no problems with these sentences. ] (]) <small>—Preceding ] comment was added at 03:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)</small><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
leads to a (ridiculously biased, but that's besides the point) website that has uncited death tolls for its totals. |
|
:Sorry, due to increased work load I missed your comment. |
|
|
:The first sentence explains motives without attributing the claim to anyone. This is not okay. Though I remember reading that as the explanation, we're not in the position to offer commentary. Need an RS for that, or just drop the explanation, and leave the facts. |
|
|
:The second one is factual, so I have no problem with it. ] (]) 13:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:: I just replaced 'kidnapped' by 'captured' as that is the term used in wikipedia at the Lebanon conflict page and also in the source, New York Times. As Israel and Lebanon countries are (legally) at war and the victims are soldiers, I think 'kidnapping' is not the right word. ] (]) 20:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The figures they give aren't ''too wild,'' save for a <u>couple thousand inflated up or down</u> but I do want to know where it actually sources its figures from. ] (]) 15:05, 20 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::Usually kidnapped is used for civilians but it is valid also for soldiers in certain instances. I don't know what source you're referring to, but a kidnap operation usually has it's victims dubbed as "abducted hostages" (I've inserted this correction). Considering that this operation was declared as a hostage taking maneuver from the get go, that is the neutral descriptive to go by. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 20:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:The source has been removed . See the JVL entry at ]. JVL is designated as 'generally unreliable' in Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 01:20, 24 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
: That JVL article is a fine example of why JVL should not be used as a source. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 01:21, 24 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::Thanks y'all! ] (]) 15:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Main Phase == |
|
==Religious foundations of the conflict== |
|
|
I created this subsection in the "Scopes of the conflict" section. Regardless of your opinion, I (and Huckabee) think it is naive to start the article with the Ottomans. Until ] becomes a blue link again, this article is the only place where this (hugely important) concept can be described and discussed. ] (]) 17:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:I started looking for more sources, and found plenty. I made heavy use of direct quotes (yes, it looks like a ]) and selected academic texts to help me survive the inevitable criticisms. Strange how this abundantly published facet of a top international issue was completely left out of Misplaced Pages. One of my sources is tittled "The Elephant in the Room". Indeed. ] (]) 23:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::I strongly oppose the inclusion of the Huckabee comment in the section. Putting his (mildly said) vain comment in the section gives the impression that he might have some kind of authority or expertise to comment the subject whereas he is irrelevant regarding it. Random comments by random US governors should not be the centerpoint of international issues. Instead, more sources like the 2006 thesis and historical and political studies are needed, not populistic newspaper comments. --] (]) 12:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:Don't complain, ], replace it with a better source -- there a plenty to chose from. ] (]) 14:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:: I object to the title of the subsection "Religious foundations of the conflict". Nobody would deny that there is today a religious element to the conflict, but it is definitely not a foundation. The Zionist movement was overall agnostic and did not promote a "fight against muslims" but rather the colonisation of an -according to them- "land without people". In the same sense, the PLO was rather non-religious, included important Christian leaders (see ] and focussed on the de-colonisation debate. It is not until the eighties when Hamas adopts clearly religious positions. But until today, even the most outspoken, or fanatic, Muslim critics of Israel tend to use the word 'Zionist state', not 'Jewish state', as to distance themselves from a general Jew-hating vision. So I would replace 'foundations' with 'aspects' or 'elements' or something like that. ] (]) 18:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Why, of all places, did the Jews want Palestine? ] (]) 02:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
Why has the main phase been edited to ongoing? It very clearly ended in 1982. There are no Arab armies clashing with Israel anymore. This should be rectified. ] (]) 00:44, 11 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Infobox == |
|
'''Comment:''' Ilyacadiz, I'm not sure I'd agree with you considering the exploits of the Grand Mufti. Sure, the Christians were joining the Pan-Arab movement on a nationalistic level, but the Muslims were acting under Islamic interpretations of the conflict. Emmanuelm, the Jews wanted a national sanctuary in the historical homeland of Eretz Israel. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 04:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:Emmanuelm, it is true that there is a religous foundation for zionism (considering Eretz Israel as the historical homeland for all jews whereever they are), but it is not exactly a foundation for the conflict, as the immigration per se could have led to other outcomes: in its earliest stages, some zionist and Arab leaders envisaged a strong alliance between "two semitic peoples". Could have been... Jaakobou, the hate speeches of the Grand Mufti are very much quoted, but I think they really didn't determine the subsequent wars. "The Muslims were acting under Islamic interpretations of the conflict" cannot be accurate (although a (small) minority of course would): among the 5 Arab armed forces that attacked Israel in 1948, Lebanon had a Christian president, neither in Iraq, Egypt nor Syria, specific Muslim views were held in goverment circles (all were nationalistic) and Jordan's troops, the strongest of this war, were even headed by a British officer. Much more so in 1967: Nasser was anti-religious, had a pact with communist Russia and used anti-colonialist, never islamic, rethoric, the powerful Syrian Defence Minister Hafez Assad was even Alawite (a Muslim orientation that refuses the normal Muslim interpretation and is strongly secular), and I can't find in the PLO's documents and speeches any reference to an 'Islamic interpretation'. That starts with Hamas in the eighties. If I missed something, glad to learn it. ] (]) 12:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::Several good points in there. Others a bit misleading - no Arab leader believed the Zionists would be allies (Faisal was being bribed to say it). Lebanon didn't attack Israel in 1948 - leading Ben-Gurion and Dayan thinking it would be possible to seize the south of that country (in the event they were too busy with Egypt). You're right about there being no Islamicism until relatively recently - so the "Mufti", an advisor to a Sharia court (and controlling the budget of teachers) wasn't rated very important by the British. Meanwhile 10% of the population were getting a representative council, their language made official and new roads linking their settlements. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 20:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
'''Comments:''' |
|
|
# "historical homeland" is not necessarily a religious concepts. While the bible tells stories of Jewish history in what the Romans later retitled "]", certainly archeological findings complement it with non religious and more refined outlook of actual historical events. |
|
|
# The Mufti, was the "grand mufti" with all the attached meanings of rulership in the Arab world. If you have a valid source saying otherwise, I'd be interested in giving it a look. |
|
|
# I'm not following the changes you're interested in when you describe the Arab leadership as acting on ideology rather than religious inspiration (I'm not really contesting this). Please clarify the changes you're interested in so I can see where we're supposedly going with this. |
|
|
Cheers, <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 20:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This infobox in the lead section is too excessive, what should we do for the infobox? ] (]) 06:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
:Having this short section right at the top of the main part of the article is plain odd I'm afraid, however long we sit on the talk page and discuss our own views on the subject matter. The simple fact is that the two sources cited seem to be fairly minor academic papers. Added to that, the George Mason one for example is about incorporating religion into the peace making process rather than being a detailed analysis of the conflict's origins, and actually acknowledges that "the conflict is still seen mainly in terms of competing nationalist claims over land"; the other link doesn't work (and what can be seen, the title, does not refer to the ''origins'' of the conflict at all). At the very least this needs to be moved to the bottom of the article. But probably removed altogether as ] & ]. --] (]) 21:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
There are over 5,000 Israeli civilian victims.
Only in 1947-2022 over 4,200 Israeli civilians were killed, not including over 800 Israeli civilians were killed in 2023.
Showing less than 1,800 Israeli civilians were killed is misleading. IdanST (talk) 16:27, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Why has the main phase been edited to ongoing? It very clearly ended in 1982. There are no Arab armies clashing with Israel anymore. This should be rectified. Zagreus99 (talk) 00:44, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=small}
Referencing and citation: criterion met
.svg)
.svg){kind=small}