Talk:Israel-Palestine Conflict

I'd reccomend this

Elusive Peace: Israel and the Arabs - Its one of the better documentaries out there about this. Denis Cavanagh 16:32, 17 April 2008 (CDT)

Use of the Word "Terrorist"

This became something of an issue in my Lebanon article (see the talk page), so I'll state my argument clearly up front. The killing of innocent civilians, either by setting off bombs in cities, hijackings, or hostage-taking, is terrorism. Yes, that makes British mandate-era Jewish groups like Irgun terrorists, and it makes the PLO, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad all terrorist organizations, either in the past (PLO) or now (Hamas). Just wanted to make my position clear. (And, yes, I would argue that many of Israel's attacks in the Occupied Territories and Lebanon could be considered state terrorism, but that's not a can of worms I'd like to open in this article) Steven Clark Bennett 22:02, 17 April 2008 (CDT)

Umm, add the phrase "deliberate" to "killing of innocent civilians", and I think you're on safer ground. The Geneva Conventions actually say that it's OK to fire on a hospital or somesuch if it's being used for military purposes (e.g. to fire from). So if civilians were killed in such an attack, that would be within the GC (provided that reasonable care had been taken, to the degree reasonably feasible, to avoid them). How exactly to encompass that point in a pithy definition I don't have an immediate thought on; I was thinking "deliberate and avoidable", but no doubt people would just argue that it was necessary to target civilians. J. Noel Chiappa 23:55, 17 April 2008 (CDT)

Terrorist or Freedom Fighter? The Age old question...

The problem here is, where do you draw a line? Nelson Mandela and the ANC would have been considered a terrorist organization on the above definition, yet he is universally regarded as a freedom fighter today. I also dislike the fact that terrorism seems to only be relevant when it is individuals or non-state organisation. Mugabe and his 'war veterans' are terrorists as well. Its a tough issue, which I think the UN tried to discuss years ago but didn't really get anywhere. Denis Cavanagh 06:02, 18 April 2008 (CDT)

If the only difference between "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" is that the latter won, then if the ANC were freedom fighters, so were the Irgun (see above). I'd prefer something a little less malleable - hence my liking for something like the 'delibate and avoidable attack on civilians' standard, or something like that. But you're right, it is often very much in the eye of the beholder, and one person's "freedom fighter" is another one's "terrorist". Hence my original position, that I just prefer to just avoid using the term, since it is so problematic. J. Noel Chiappa 23:05, 18 April 2008 (CDT)

Pre-Partion Violence - Citation?

Hi Steven, I've added the citation needed template regarding the following passage:

They attacked the British as well as the Arab population, who they saw as enemies conspiring against the Jewish people. In 1946, Irgun bombed the southern wing of the King David Hotel, in Jerusalem, which the British had established as their headquaters. Ninety-one people were killed.

The situation in Palestine was rapidly escalating into a civil war, with Jews attacking Arabs, Arabs increasingly retaliating

Could you please note sources which describe a pre-partition pattern of Jews attacking and Arabs retaliating? (It is generally understood that if anything, the opposite was the case post-partition.) I can find no sources supporting this asseriton.

Even an extremely pro-Palestinian source, Ilan Pappe, seems to indicate this wasn't the case. He writes that "Palestine was a country torn by war, not so much between Jews and Arabs -- from 1939 after the Arab revold had subsided, until the UN decision on Palestine in November 1947, the level of violence between the two communitites remained low -- but between the Jews and the mandatory authorities" (The Making of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 20-21). He later acknowledges that "The morning after the UN General Assembly ratified the partition resolution, Palestine was swept by an outbreak of violence which signalled the begninning of a civil war that was to last until 15 May, 1948. The first attacks were perptrated by Palestinians against Jews" (Ibid., 76). Gilead Ini 13:13, 8 August 2008 (CDT)

Well, its been more than a year, but I'll finally get back to you (I haven't checked CZ that much, sorry). I got a lot of that history from Palestine: A Personal History by Karl Sabbagh. He mostly cited Illan Pappe and Benny Morris. Even though our views on this issue are somewhat different, I am glad you continued this article and fleshed it out. I'm not planning on working on it anymore-I have a lot of schoolwork on my hands now, and I doubt I could write about this issue in a neutral way (I've talked to a few Palestinians at my university about it, and about what happened in Gaza early this year). Anyway, good work on the article-thanks again! Steven Clark Bennett 04:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Change proposal

First, given that this is an ongoing issue, I propose to add the Politics and Military workgroups.

Second, I propose to move most or all of this article to Israel-Palestine Conflict. My opinion, as a Military Editor, is that "Arab-Israeli Conflict" refers to the broader conflict between Israel and Arab nations. The 1948, 1967, and 1973 Arab-Israeli Wars were confrontations between the regular militaries of nation-states, not an occupation and insurgency. Israeli operations in Lebanon still involved recognized nation-states, although the declared Israeli objective was Hezbollah. Howard C. Berkowitz 15:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me! Steven Clark Bennett 17:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Citizenship

The article states that for a Zero-state solution it is assumed that Palestinians return to Jordanian and Egyptian citizenship. Return to non-Palestinian citizenship? What are they returning from? I thought the point of them being Palestinian refugees, as opposed to Jordanian or Egyptian refugees, was that their homeland was Palestine. If they were returning to any citizenship it would be Palestinian, since that is where they came from. Surely, for the majority, adopting foreign citizenship would not be a return, it would be a change? The article (and that of Zero-state solution) seem to be suggesting that all the rerugees were originally Jordanian or Egyptian, rather than having come from what is now called Israel before their homes were annexed. David Finn 06:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Let me reference that. In general, Jordan and Egypt don't consider them citizens, but the Israeli groups claiming say they are. It may not be logical, but it's a very real political position. Howard C. Berkowitz 06:44, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

So it is a politial position, taken by a minority of the people calling for a zero-state solution, who were already in a minority of those looking for a solution overall. I say that because there are those who call for a zero-state solution, but who do not believe that Palestinians are in fact Jordanian/Egyptian, and those that believe that either way they won't have to leave.

My problem is that this is in the introduction, with no qualifiers, which leaves Citizendium as the one advancing this position. There is nothing in the article to suggest that this is not a legitimate view - the article simply states that for this solution it is assumed they return to foreign nationality, when most people would believe that they never had foreign nationality in the first place.

In fact, the article talks about 750,000 refugees in the initial civil war alone, and never mentions they were anything other than born-and-bred Palestinians, so I can't find anywhere, including the article on Zero-state solution, where the concept of the Palestinians actually being Jordanian/Egyptian is explained.

Imagine this was homeopathy, and the phrase not "return to foreign citizenship" but "memory of water", another position held by a minority. In this case we'd have quotation marks at least showing it was an invented term, and we'd qualify it with "so say a few people" or whatever. It would be clear that it wasn't just a fact that Citizendium was describing, but a disputed viewpoint, and who who was doing the disputing as well as the viewpointing.

It seems we could fix this easy - change it to "adopt foreign citizenship" instead of "return to foreign citizenship", because the latter requires (for me at least) quite a bit of research and expansion of at least two articles. The former preserves neutrality without changing the meaning for most people. David Finn 07:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)