Talk:Israeli–Palestinian conflict

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 October 2024

Please add main article links for the 'Fatah-Hamas split' and 'Israel-Hamas war' subsections for ease of navigation.

For example:

Fatah–Hamas split (2006–2007)

Main article: Fatah-Hamas conflict

Israel–Hamas war (2023–present)

Main article: Israel-Hamas war

AlecCoates (talk) 15:50, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Alaexis_¿question? 18:34, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

@Sailingsmooth5, why have you reverted my edit? Alaexis_¿question? 19:58, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Information I added

Hello BillHPike, I read your edit summary and I understood your intention and reasoning. I tried now to rebuild the part. I would appreciate if you could take a look! HaOfa (talk) 13:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

If there is any salvageable content, I feel it be best to merge with the existing Economic disputes and boycotts section. — BillHPike (talk, contribs)

International law and the use of force

Regarding this diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict&oldid=1252596095

which removed the sentence "This is in contrast to the consensus in international law which allows for Palestinians, as a people under illegal military occupation, to use lethal force against Israeli military targets and installations." citing Erakat's book.

I'm pretty confident this is widely accepted and not the personal opinion of the cited author. I will check Aeyal Gross' work when I get a chance. DMH223344 (talk) 16:37, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Palestinian right to resist and Palestinian right of armed resistance are pertinent. The revert is based only on the lack of sourcing for "academic consensus" so it can go back in either with a source saying that or similar else suitably worded so as to describe the level of consensus that exists. Also worth noting that it is a matter of academic consensus that an occupier cannot self defend (an oxymoron). Selfstudier (talk) 16:49, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Smallangryplanet and Andrevan: Let's not be scrapping over trivia, see my comment above and let's fix the sentence up properly. Selfstudier (talk) 10:54, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Sure, what are you thinking? Maybe I was too quick on the trigger given that that sentence is exactly the one from the Jpost article, and it's referencing not only academic consensus but international legal consensus - @Andrevan would you accept restoring that quote with a citation to the UN, which continually

2. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial domination, apartheid and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle;

? Smallangryplanet (talk) 11:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I think the problem is the expression "academic consensus", if there is not a source saying that or similar, we need to specify more carefully who it is that hold the view in question. Let's hunt about and see what we can find. Selfstudier (talk) 11:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I'm missing something then - the line in question is

This is in contrast to the consensus in international law which allows for Palestinians, as a people under illegal military occupation, to use lethal force against Israeli military targets and installations

, right? Smallangryplanet (talk) 11:34, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

My fault for being unclear, Andrevan gave in edit summary "no academic consensus noted in source" which must refer to "the consensus in international law...". Selfstudier (talk) 11:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

No worries, that's what I assumed - so would an explicit reference to a legal (or several legal) sources pass muster, Andrevan? Smallangryplanet (talk) 11:59, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

As Selfstudier says, per WP:RS/AC, a source must explicitly cite an international consensus or the wording should be changed. The UN would not be a source for that because it doesn't say that. Otherwise, it should be specifically attributed to the scholars or the wording otherwise changed. Andre🚐 18:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I guess I don't understand how this runs into WP:RS/AC, given that it's not an academic opinion, it's a legal judgement from the United Nations, sort definitionally an international consensus, right? Smallangryplanet (talk) 18:34, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

No, a consensus must be named such explicitly. Otherwise it should just attribute a legal judgment to the UN. Or if all the UN member nations voted for a resolution it should say that. Andre🚐 18:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Understood. I will do some digging for an explicitly named legal or academic consensus, in the short term how about:

This is in contrast to UN general assembly resolution A/RES/45/130 which reflects an international consensus (113 out of 159 voting nations voted in favor, 13 voted against[1]) explicitly allowing for Palestinians, as a people under foreign occupation, to use armed struggle to resist said occupation.[2]

[1] https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/282163?ln=en

[2] https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-184801 Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:31, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

That would also be interpretation of a WP:PRIMARY source so the contrast point seems to be WP:SYNTH. Need a secondary source making that interpretation. The UN record can be used for simple facts absent your interpretation. Andre🚐 19:41, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Added without SYNTH. Smallangryplanet (talk) 20:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I made a tweak to the language. Don't forget UN resolutions are nonbinding so this doesn't "allow" anything nor does it say "allow." Andre🚐 20:19, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

The sentence needs to be improved, if sources can be found saying there is a consensus, all to the good, if not, then we cannot assume it exists. Selfstudier (talk) 18:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

OpEd

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

https://www.piratewires.com/p/how-wikipedia-s-pro-hamas-editors-hijacked-the-israel-palestine-narrative BrianH123 (talk) 02:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I would like to thank everyone who helped me on my journey to becoming one of the top 30 members of this powerful group of pro-Hamas editors hijacking Wikipedia. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

The author is busily twittering. Or is it Xing? Selfstudier (talk) 08:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

And this Kinda giving the game away. Selfstudier (talk) 08:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

There's a curtain. He's pulling it back. It's important work. It reveals that we work in pairs or trios to evade detection. There is incredible extensiveness. Setting aside the casual defamation and parallels with antisemitic conspiracy theories, I like to look on the bright side. Although the article would undoubtably be flagged as a hallucination if it had been produced by an LLM, these kinds of articles build community. They bring people together, albeit people likely to have an elevated susceptibility to misinformation, manipulation, radicalization, and probably finance/romance scams, and that's a good thing. And they help to make sure people don't feel too bad about employing deception to fight the pro-Hamas hijackers for the greater good. He's helping people come together and feel better about themselves. Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:08, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Lol, and that's a wrap, close this up now. Selfstudier (talk) 11:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: Are you annoyed about being only "in the top 99.975% of editors by number of edits"? Zero^talk 01:06, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Casualties number in the infobox is outdated

If you just add 1948 Arab–Israeli War number with Israel–Hamas war number, the total number of causalities is higher than the number given in the infobox. Bogazicili (talk) 18:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Updated. Bogazicili (talk) 17:13, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 November 2024

Two closing braces need removed from the start of the article.

}} The Israeli–Palestinian conflict

Had a look and cannot see where existing opening braces would be. Lyeuhm (talk) 20:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Already done... - Adolphus79 (talk) 04:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Summary proposal

Proposal to summarize fourth lede paragraph:

From:

The international community, with the exception of the US and Israel, has been in consensus since the 1980s regarding a settlement of the conflict on the basis of a two-state solution along the 1967 borders and a just resolution for Palestinian refugees. The US and Israel have instead preferred bilateral negotiations rather than resolving the conflict on the basis of international law. In recent years, public support for a two-state solution has decreased, with Israeli policy reflecting an interest in maintaining the occupation rather than seeking a permanent resolution to the conflict. In 2007, Israel tightened its blockade of the Gaza Strip and made official its policy of isolating it from the West Bank. Since then, Israel has framed its relationship with Gaza in terms of the laws of war rather than in terms of its status as an occupying power. In a July 2024 ruling, the International Court of Justice rebuffed Israel's stance, determining that the Palestinian territories constitute one political unit and that Israel continues to illegally occupy the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The ICJ also determined that Israeli policies violate the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Since 2008, the Gaza has been ruled by Hamas with whom and Israel have fought five wars, the most recent of which began in 2023 and is ongoing.

To:

The international community, with the exception of the US and Israel, has been in consensus since the 1980s regarding a settlement of the conflict on the basis of a two-state solution along the 1967 borders and a just resolution for Palestinian refugees. In recent years, public support among both Israelis and Palestinians for a two-state solution has dwindled. Since 2007, an Israel-Gaza conflict arose, of which five wars, including the ongoing one, have taken place between Israel and Hamas which became to rule Gaza. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict continues to have significant regional and international repercussions and is considered to be one of the longest-running conflicts in the modern period.

(changed/added sentences underlined). Makeandtoss (talk) 12:19, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't like ICJ rulings being taken out. What do the sources say? Bogazicili (talk) 18:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

No. What is the motivation for shortening this paragraph? DMH223344 (talk) 23:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Simple Wikipedia page

There's a simple version of this page here: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93Palestine_conflict I've updated it with significant help from the sources here. Hopefully it doesn't get reverted to the stub it was! Lewisguile (talk) 00:01, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your work there, it looks like it took a lot of effort. I'll go through it soon. On first glance I would say the section on mandatory palestine isnt very accurate or consistent with the mainstream narrative. British support for the zionist project was embedded in the text of the mandate for palestine. DMH223344 (talk) 07:57, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, @DMH223344. I mainly added material about after that, as there was already info about Mandatory Palestine there. Please do update as appropriate. I notice one of the existing users has tagged some of it as dubious, which is material that was recently discussed at great length here, so there's always a risk with Simple Wikipedia pages of them becoming POV forks. Lewisguile (talk) 20:01, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Zionism in lead

@إيان, I think they way Zionism has been expanded on in the lead makes that sentence more difficult to read. Of course Zionism is a critical part of the conflict, but the aspects that are most relevant to the conflict are specifically regarding zionism's relationship with palestinians and palestine. I'm reverting for now and will try to find a better way to represent zionism here. DMH223344 (talk) 18:58, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

went with state instead of homeland إيان (talk) 16:48, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

The current lead of Zionism mentions both but in particular the sentence "Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible" is well sourced and has consensus, subject of a current RFC likely to ratify that consensus. Selfstudier (talk) 17:55, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Even that is not clear enough, see my comment below. The creation of a "Jewish state" by itself was not necessarily the cause of the conflict. It was instead a result of the whole Zionist project, which entailed the dispossession of the Palestinians (politically and physically). DMH223344 (talk) 19:45, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Recent revert

@BePrepared1907 please explain why this edit is "POV": https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict&curid=46216&diff=1262202639&oldid=1262196616 This sentence explains the basis on which zionists and palestinians were in conflict with the arrival of zionists to Palestine. DMH223344 (talk) 04:31, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

The main problem in my opinion is that it is too long for the lede, better to integrate it. Makeandtoss (talk) 07:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

How is it too long? It's a single sentence. It explains what about Zionism specifically led to a conflict. DMH223344 (talk) 17:29, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

This is certainly not an improvement. You can't take one quote from one book and add it to the lede in wikivoice. The lede is supposed to reflect all RS and this is a rather extreme take. Even Khalidi is better. Alaexis_¿question? 07:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

It's a factual statement and briefly summarizes the conflict between zionism and the palestinians. DMH223344 (talk) 03:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

It is much too POV and WP:UNDUE for a single quote. Keeping it as simple as "establish a homeland" is better. — Czello ^(music) 10:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

No, it is not POV and definitely not UNDUE. The basic idea behind Zionism is the establishment of a demographically Jewish state. The mainstream narrative is that this was done through "colonization". The conflict induced by the establishment of a Jewish state was that it dispossessed Palestinians politically (and physically). (see Morris for example: The Zionists were intent on politically, or even physically, dispossessing and supplanting the Arabs)

Shafir puts it this all together quite succinctly. His quote directly supports the addition:

The goal of Zionism was to colonize Palestine and establish homogeneous Jewish settlements while suppressing Palestinian national aspirations.

DMH223344 (talk) 19:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC)